Prasanna

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

The Bond of Love Summary in English by Kenneth Anderson

The Bond of Love by Kenneth Anderson About the Author

Kenneth Anderson (1901-1974 ) was an Indian-born, British writer and hunter who wrote books about his adventures in the jungles of South India. His love for the inhabitants of the Indian jungle led him to big game hunting and to writing real-life adventure stories. He often went into the jungle alone and unarmed to meditate and enjoy the beauty of untouched nature. Anderson’s style of writing is descriptive, as he talks about his adventures with wild animals.

While most stories are about hunting tigers and leopards—particularly man- eaters—he includes chapters on his first-hand encounters with elephants, bison, and bears. There are stories about the less ‘popular’ creatures like Indian wild dogs, hyenas, and snakes. He explains the habits and personalities of these animals. Anderson gives insights into the people of the Indian jungles of his time, with woods full of wildlife and local inhabitants having to contend with poor quality roads, communication and health facilities. His books delve into the habits of the jungle tribes, their survival skills, and their day-to-day lives.

Author Name	Kenneth Anderson
Born	8 March 1910, Bengaluru
Died	30 August 1974, Bengaluru
Education	St. Joseph’s College, Bishop Cotton Boys’ School
Nationality	British, Indian

The Bond of Love Introduction to the Chapter

The Bond of Love is a touching account of an orphaned sloth bear who is rescued by the author, Kenneth Anderson, and gifted to his wife as a pet. Bruno, the playful baby bear, gets attached to her, but as he grows in size he is sent to a zoo. When the author’s wife goes to meet Bruno at the zoo, they realise how much the bear loves her and misses her. With the permission of the superintendent of the zoo, they bring Bruno back home. At home, a separate island is made for the animal where the author’s wife and the bear spend hours together.

The Bond of Love Summary in English

Once, Anderson and his companions were passing through sugarcane fields near Mysore when they encountered wild pigs that were being driven away from the fields. Some of them had been shot dead, while others had fled. They thought that everything was over when suddenly a black sloth bear appeared and one of the author’s friends wantonly shot it dead. Soon they discovered that a baby bear had been riding on the back of the mother bear that had been killed. Distressed, the young cub ran around its prostrate parent making a pitiful noise.

Anderson tried to seize the cub, but it ran off into the sugarcane fields, only to be chased and finally captured by the author. He presented the young bear to his wife who was delighted with it. She at once put a coloured ribbon around its neck, and after discovering it was a male cub she named it Bruno. At first, the young bear drank milk from a bottle but soon he started eating all kinds of food. He would eat porridge, vegetables, fruit, nuts, meat, curry and rice regardless of spices, bread, eggs, chocolates, sweets, pudding, ice-cream, etc., etc., etc. As for drink, Bruno drank anything including milk, tea, coffee, lime-juice, aerated water, buttermilk, beer and alcoholic drinks. It all went down with relish.

Bruno became very attached to the two Alsatian dogs that the family owned as well as with the children of the tenants. He enjoyed complete freedom and played and moved about in every area of the author’s house, including the kitchen, and even slept in their beds.

One day, Bruno met with an accident. He entered the library and ate some of the barium carbonate, a poison, that the author had kept to kill the rats. The poison soon showed its effect and Bruno suffered an attack of paralysis. However, he managed to reach the author’s wife who at once informed her husband. Bruno was immediately taken to a veterinary doctor who administered two antidote injections of 10 cc each to the bear. Bruno got well and soon started eating normally. Another time, Bruno drank old engine oil the author had kept as a weapon against the inroads of termites. However, it did not have any effect on him.

The author’s family took good care of Bruno, so he grew at a fast pace becoming many times the size he was when he came. He had become mischievous and playful. Bruno was very fond the author’s family, but he loved the author’s wife above all, and she loved him too! The author’s wife now changed his name to Baba which means a ‘small boy’. He leamt to perform a few tricks as well but still had to be kept chained because of the tenants’ children.

Soon the author and his son, and their friends felt that Bruno should be sent to a zoo because he had become too big to be kept at home. The narrator’s wife, who had got deeply attached to Bruno, was convinced after much effort. The bear was taken to the Mysore zoo after getting a positive response from the curator.

Although the author and his family missed Bruno greatly; but in a sense they were relieved. However his wife was inconsolable. She wept and fretted and wouldn’t eat anything. Meanwhile, reports from the curator and the friends of the narrator who visited the zoo, reported that Bruno, though he was well, was sad too and was not eating anything. After three months, at the insistence of his wife, the author took her to the zoo.

Bruno at once recognized the author’s wife and expressed delight by howling with happiness. After spending three hours feeding and pampering Bruno, the author’s wife requested the curator to give Bruno back to her. He, in turn, recommended her to contact the superintendent. Finally, with the Superintendent’s permission, Bruno was brought home. In order to keep him comfortable and safe, an island with a dry pit or moat around it was made especially for him. The author’s wife would spend a lot of time on the island with Bruno sitting in her lap. This indicated that sloth bears too have affection, memory and individual characteristics.

The Bond of Love Title

The Bond of Love is a perfect example of how love begets love. Even animals understand the language of love. They respond to love in equal measure. The author’s wife loves her pet bear like a child and takes care of his needs. The love given to Bruno by her is reciprocated by him in equal measure. When he is sent to the zoo, both the narrator’s wife and Bruno fret, refuse food and pine for each other. When she goes to see him, Bruno recognises her even after a gap of three months. Thus, we can see the author’s wife and Bruno share a deep bond of love. The title is therefore quite apt.

The Bond of Love Setting

The story The Bond of Love starts from the sugarcane fields near Mysore where the female sloth-bear is shot by one of the narrator’s companions and he brings the bear cub home. The scene now shifts to the narrator’s home in Bangalore whereas he grows in size, there is not much space for BrunoHe is then sent to the Mysore zoo. Finally, after Bruno is brought back because the author’s wife and Bruno were pining for each other. Bruno was kept on a special twenty feet long and fifteen feet wide island made for Bruno in the narrator’s compound in Bangalore. It was surrounded by a dry pit, or moat, six feet wide and seven feet deep. A wooden box that once housed fowls was brought and put on the island for Bruno to sleep in at night.

The Bond of Love Theme

The Bond of Love focuses on the mutual love between an animal and a human being. The author wants to say that animals, too, understand the language of love. The relationship between the bear and the author’s wife proves it. Bruno, the bear, is loved dearly by the author’s wife and he loves her in equal measure.

When he is sent away to a zoo, he frets, looks sad and refuses to eat. The author’s wife, too, does not eat. She visits Bruno in the zoo after a gap of three months, and he recognises her at once. He expresses his pleasure on seeing her by standing on his head. Thus, the bond of mutual love that exists between human and animal is too strong to be broken by time or distance.

The Bond of Love Message

The story conveys the message of the need of showing kindness to animals for they too are creatures created by the same God who created human beings. Animals have a right to dignified and free life. Kenneth Anderson’s friend kills the sloth bear, Bruno’s mother, wantonly. This senseless act leaves the bear cub alone. Thus, human beings being superior in intelligence and evolution, have a special responsibility towards animals and birds, pet or wild.

Animals also experience the feelings of love, joy, pain and separation just like human beings. When Bruno is sent to the zoo, the narrator’s wife weeps and frets, especially when she hears her Baba is inconsolable in Mysore and is refusing food. Bruno is delighted when he sees her and stands on his head to show his pleasure. Thus animals are equally devoted and loyal in reciprocating the love human beings give them.

The Bond of Love Characters

Bruno

Bruno, the pet sloth bear, is affectionate, emotional, sensitive, and playful. Through him the author reveals that animals are sensitive beings with emotions akin to human emotions. Once the bear cub, Bruno, is brought to the family and presented to the lady of the house as a pet, he behaves like a member of the family with a specifically deep bond of love for the author’s wife. He runs about the house, even sleeping in the author’s bed.

Bruno is a very loving bear. He quickly makes friends with the Alsatian dogs and the children of the tenants. He loves the narrator and his family. So much so that when he is sent to the zoo in Mysore, he is inconsolable. He refuses to eat anything and looks thin and sad. Bruno’s selfless love is evident when he is sent to the zoo where he suffers the pain of separation. He frets and refuses to eat. He is overjoyed when he sees the narrator’s wife after three months. He stands on his head to show his pleasure on seeing her.

Bruno is playful and full of life. He entertains everyone by his tricks. He spends his time in playing, running into the kitchen and going to sleep in the beds of the narrator’s family. And he knows a few tricks, too. At the command, ‘Baba, wrestle’, or ‘Baba, box,’ he vigorously tackles anyone who comes forward for a rough and tumble. If he is given a stick and ordered ‘Baba, hold gun’, he points the stick like a gun. If one asks him, ‘Baba, where’s baby?’ he immediately produces and cradles a stump of wood.

Bruno is mischievous and inquisitive. On one occasion, Bruno eats barium carbonate which is kept in the kitchen to kill rats. He is paralysed and has to be taken to a vet. On another occasion, he drinks up old engine oil.

The Author’s Wife

The author’s wife, who is not given any name in the story, is the caretaker of the sloth bear, whom she names Bruno and later on affectionately calls ‘Baba’. She is an embodiment of love, care, concern, consideration and kindness. She is delighted when her husband gifts her a young cub of a sloth bear. She is selfless and highly affectionate and takes good care of the pet as if he were her own child. It is due to her love and care that the pet bear survives despite losing his mother. She takes him into her family and calls him ‘Baba’ which in Hindi means a ‘young boy’. Because of her affection, he becomes playful and fun-loving. She is kind and gentle with animals as is evident not only in the love with which she brings up Bruno, but also the fact that she has two pet Alsatians too.

However, she is considerate and does not resent putting him in chains for the sake of the children of the tenants. She also agrees to have him sent to a zoo when he grows too big and unmanageable. She is terribly sad at being separated from him. Like a real mother, she carries food for him when she visits him at the zoo. She is so overwhelmed by seeing Bruno’s sorrow at being separated from her that she is able to convince the curator and the Superintendent that he should be sent back home. She is delighted to have him back and makes the pet sit in her lap although he has grown big.

She is sentimental and when Bruno is sent to the zoo, she preserves the stump and the bamboo stick with which he used to play and returns them to him when he comes back.

The Bond of Love Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
How did the author get the baby sloth bear?
Answer:
The author got the baby sloth bear in a freak accident. Once the author and his friends were passing through the sugarcane fields near Mysore, Bruno’s mother was wantonly shot dead by one of his companions. The cub was found moving on the body of his mother. It was in great shock and tried to flee but the author managed to capture it, and bring it home.

Question 2.
Why did the author not kill the sloth bear when she appeared suddenly?
Answer:
Being kind-hearted, the author did not kill any animals without any motive or provocation. As the sloth bear had not provoked or attacked him, he did not kill it. That is why he describes his companions shooting of her a wanton act.

Question 3.
Why did one of the author’s companions kill the bear?
Answer:
One of the author’s companions killed the bear wantonly, in a moment of impulsive rush of blood. He may have though the bear would attack them and he may have shot it as an impulsive act bom of self-preservation.

Question 4.
How did the author capture the bear cub?
Answer:
When the bear cub’s mother was shot, it ran around its prostrate parent making a pitiful noise. The author ran up to it to attempt a capture. It scooted into the sugarcane field. Following it with his companions, the author was at last able to grab it by the scruff of its neck and put it in a gunny bag.

Question 5.
How did the author’s wife receive the baby sloth bear?
Answer:
The author’s wife was extremely happy to get the baby sloth bear as a pet. She put a coloured ribbon around his neck and named him Bruno.

Question 6.
How was Bruno, the baby bear, fed initially? What followed within a few days?
Answer:
Initially, the little Bmno was given milk from a bottle. But soon he started eating all kinds of food and drank all kinds of drinks. He ate a variety of dishes like porridge, vegetables, nuts, fruits, meat, eggs, chocolates etc., and drank milk, tea, coffee, lime-juice, buttermilk, even beer and alcoholic liquor.

Question 7.
“One day an accident befell him”. What accident befell Bruno?
Answer:
One day Bmno ate the rat poison (barium carbonate) kept in the library to kill rats. The poison affected his nervous and muscular system and left him paralysed. He rapidly became weak, panted heavily, vomited, and was unable to move.

Question 8.
How was Bruno cured of paralysis?
Answer:
Bmno had mistakenly consumed poison and had got paralysed. However, he managed to crawl to the author’s wife on his stumps. He was taken to the veterinary doctor who and injected 10 cc of the antidote into him. The first dose had no effect. Then another dose was injected which cured Bruno absolutely. After ten minutes of the dose, his breathing became normal and he could move his arms and legs.

Question 9.
Why did Bruno drink the engine oil? What was the result?
Answer:
Once the narrator had drained the old engine oil from the sump of his car and kept it to treat termites. Bruno, who would drink anything that came his way, drank about one gallon of this oil too. However, it did not have any effect on him.

Question 10.
What used to be Bruno’s activities at the author’s home?
Answer:
In the beginning, Bruno was left free. He spent his time in playing, running into the kitchen and going to sleep in our beds. As he grew older, he became more mischievous and playful. He learnt to do a few tricks, too. At the command, ‘Baba, wrestle’, or ‘Baba, box,’ he vigorously tackled anyone who came forward for a rough and tumble. If someone said ‘Baba, hold gun’, he would point the stick at the person. If he was asked, ‘Baba, where’s baby?’ he immediately produced and cradled affectionately a stump of wood which he had carefully concealed in his straw bed.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

The Tale of Melon City Summary in English by Vikram Seth

The Tale of Melon City by Vikram Seth About the Author

Poet Name	Vikram Seth
Born	20 June 1952 (age 67 years), Kolkata
Education	Corpus Christi College, St. Michael’s High School
Nominations	National Book Critics Circle Award for Autobiography
Awards	Padma Shri, Sahitya Akademi Award

The Tale of Melon City Summary in English

The poem is set in a city that was ruled by an impartial and mild-mannered king. He announced, one day, that an arch should be built in the city that would extend over the major main road to improve the condition for the masses. The workmen obeyed the orders and constructed the arch as they were directed. After it was built, the king rode through the street and while crossing below the arch, his crown fell off because it was built too low.

His mild expression turned into a scowl. He took this as a dishonour and sentenced the chief of builders to be hung till death. The rope was brought and gallows prepared. When the chief of builders was brought, he pleaded that it was the fault of the workers. The King stopped the procedures because he was fair and ordered that all the workmen be put to death. The workmen protested to the king that they were not the ones at fault but it was the masons who had made bricks of the wrong size.

The king called the masons and as they stood trembling in fear, they blamed the architect. The architect was sent for. When he arrived, the king proclaimed that he be hanged. The architect reminded the king that he, himself, had made certain changes in the plans when they were shown to him.

When the king heard this, he was so angry that he almost lost his ability to reason. Since he was righteous and tolerant, the king admitted that this was a difficult situation. He required advice, so he called for the wisest man in the country. The wisest man was found and carried to the royal court as he could neither walk, nor see. He was an old and an experienced man. He said in a trembling, feeble voice that the offender must be penalised—the arch that had thrown the crown off, must be hanged. Thus the arch was taken to the platform where the criminals are executed when, suddenly, a councillor said that it would be a disgrace to hang something that touched the honourable head.

The king was thoughtful and felt that the point raised was valid, indeed. But by this time, the crowd that had gathered around became restless and started grumbling. The king noticed their mood and was worried. Addressing all the people gathered there, he said that they must put off thinking about points like faults and responsibilities, as the country wanted to see the execution. Hence, someone must be hanged immediately.

The loop in the rope was got ready and was set up. It was a little high. Hence all the people were measured, one by one, to see who would reach the noose. Finally they found the man—it was none other than the king. Thus he was hanged as per the royal ruling. The ministers were glad that they had found someone to keep the unmanageable people in the town from rebelling against the king.

After his execution, they shouted, “Long live the King! The King is dead.” They pondered over the difficulty of the situation and being good at finding solutions, they sent out the messengers to announce that the next person to cross the city gate would decide the ruler of the kingdom. According to their practice, this decision would be made obligatory in a suitable ceremony.

The next man who crossed the city gate was a fool. The guards asked him to decide who ought to be the king.

The fool replied it ought to be “a melon”. This was his usual answer to all questions because he liked melons. The ministers crowned a melon and accepted it as their king. They carried the melon to the throne and respectfully placed it on it.

This event took place many years ago. Now, when the people, are questioned how a melon came to be their king, they say that the decision was based on “customary choice”. They argue that if the king is delighted in being a melon, they have no reason to criticise him as long as he left them live in peace and liberty. In that kingdom, the philosophy of laissez faire (refusal to interfere) seems to be well established.

The Tale of Melon City Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
What do the words ‘just and placid’ imply?
Answer:
The phrase implied that the king was fair and mild. The king, ‘a great believer injustice’ ensured justice was meted out to his subjects. He was also mild mannered and rarely showed any displeasure—and even if he did frown, he quickly wiped the frown off his face.

Question 2.
Where did the king want the arch constructed? Why?
Answer:
The king wanted an arch to be erected which extended over the major main road. He felt, the road would edify the spectators—it would improve the morals and knowledge of the onlookers there.

Question 3.
What happened to the king as he rode down the road?
Answer:
After the arch was built, the king rode through the street. He wanted to edify the spectators there. But as he was crossing below the arch, his crown fell off as the arch was built too low. This angered the king.

Question 4.
What order did the king give when his crown was knocked off his head?
Answer:
The king was angry because his crown was knocked off his head as he tried to ride under the arch. He ordered the chief of the builders, responsible for building the arch, to be hanged.

Question 5.
How did the chief of the builders escape hanging?
Answer:
When the chief of the builders was led away to be hanged, he pleaded innocence. He claimed that it was the fault of the workers that the arch was built so low. He escaped hanging as the ‘just and placid’ king could not bear to punish an innocent man.

Question 6.
Why were the workmen to be hanged? How did they escape hanging?
Answer:
The king ordered the workmen to be put to death as they were painted responsible, for building the low arch, by the chief of the builders. The workmen protested that they were not the ones at fault and blamed the masons who had made bricks of the wrong size. They, too, escaped death by hanging.

Question 7.
Whom did the architect lay the blame on?
Answer:
The masons blamed the architect for the poor design of the arch. The architect, in turn, passed on the blame to the king who had made certain changes in the architectural plans of the arch.

Question 8.
How did the king react to the architect’s accusation? Why did he react that way?
Answer:
When the king heard the architect’s accusation, he was so angry that he almost lost his ability to reason.

Since, he was righteous and tolerant, he admitted that this was a difficult situation. The king solicited advice and called for the wisest man in the country for counsel.

Question 9.
How was the wise man brought to court? What advice did he offer?
Answer:
The wisest man was found and carried to the royal court, as he could neither walk nor see. He was an old and experienced man. He said in a trembling, feeble voice that the offender must be penalized. He condemned the arch, guilty, for throwing the crown off the king’s head.

Question 10.
The arch was not punished in the end. Why?
Answer:
The wise man declared that it was the arch that had thrown the crown off, and it must be hanged. A councillor objected to the arch being hanged; he called it a disgrace to hang something that had touched the honourable head of the king. The king agreed with the councillor and the arch was spared.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

Birth Summary in English by A.J. Cronin

Birth by A.J. Cronin About the Author

Author Name	A.J. Cronin
Born	19 July 1896, Cardross, United Kingdom
Died	6 January 1981, Montreux, Switzerland
Full Name	Archibald Joseph Cronin
Movies and TV shows	Citadel, The Stars Look Down
Awards	National Book Award for Fiction

Birth Summary in English

Andrew reached Bryngower at almost midnight. Joe Morgan was waiting for him, walking up and down, looking visibly disturbed, but at the sight of Andrew his face showed his relief. He wanted the doctor to accompany him home, as his wife was about to deliver their first child. Andrew put away his personal thoughts, got his bag and accompanied him to his place, Number 12 Blaina Terrace. Andrew now felt dull and lacking in energy. He did not know that this night would be unusual and would affect his entire future in Blaenelly.

They reached the door of Number 12 and Joe did not go in but told Andrew, he was confident that he would do them good. Andrew went up a narrow stairway and reached a poorly furnished small bedroom that was lit only by an oil lamp. He saw Mrs Morgan’s mother, a tall woman of nearly seventy, and the stout, elderly midwife waiting besides Mrs Morgan. Mrs Morgan’s mother offered to make him a cup of tea. He realised that she was afraid of him leaving the case, saying he would return later. He assured her that he would not run away.

Down in the kitchen he drank the tea. Though he was stressed, he realised the patient would demand all his attention. He decided to remain until everything was over. He went to the bedroom, recorded the progress and once more sat by the kitchen fire. It was a still night. The only sound that he could hear was the crackle of ember in the fireplace, the slow tick-tock of the wall clock and Morgan’s footsteps as he moved to and fro in the street outside. Mrs Morgan’s mother sat opposite him quiet and still. Her eyes, extraordinarily alive and wise, looked inquiring.

He was confused and thought about the depressing incident that he had seen at the station in Cardiff. He thought of Bramwell, who was foolishly loyal to a woman who deceived him and of Edward Page, tied to the quarrelsome Blodwen, and of Denny, living unhappily, separately from his wife. He believed that all these marriages were miserable let-downs. He wished to think of marriage as a peaceful state in which he would be happy with Christine. There was a conflict between his mind that doubted and his heart that was overflowing with emotion. This made him feel resentful and confused. He was thinking of this, when Mrs Morgan’s mother addressed him. She was thinking of her daughter, Susan Morgan. She said that Susan did not want to be given chloroform if it would harm the baby. She was really looking forward to having this baby. In fact, all of them were. Andrew assured her that it would not do any harm.

At half-past three, the nurse called for him. He went up to the bedroom and understood that it was time to begin his work. After an hour’s difficult struggle, towards the early hours of the morning, the child was bom lifeless. Andrew was horrified. He had promised them that all would be well. His face, heated with his own effort suddenly seemed to grow cold. He was indecisive, to save the child, or the mother who was in a hopeless state. There was no time to think. He had to make a quick decision. Impulsively, he gave the child to the nurse and turned his concentration towards Susan Morgan who lay collapsed and almost pulse-less. In an instant, he broke a glass ampule and injected the medicine. He struggled to restore the lifeless woman and after a few minutes of intense effort, her heartbeat became steady. Ensuring that she was safe, he quickly turned his attention to the child.

The midwife had placed it beneath the bed. Andrew swiftly knelt down and pulled out the child. It was a perfectly formed boy. The lifeless body was warm and white. The umbilical cord lay like a broken stem. He inferred that this unconscious condition was caused by the lack of oxygen and excess of carbon dioxide in the blood.

He shouted in urgency for hot water, cold water, and basins. He laid the child upon a blanket and attempted to artificially induce respiration. The nurse came with the basins, the ewer, and the big iron kettle. He poured cold water into one basin and warm water into the other. Then, with quick movements, he hurried the child from one basin to the other. This continued for fifteen minutes. Andrew was panting and his eyes were blinding with sweat.

But the child did not breathe. He felt utterly dejected. The midwife and the old woman were watching him with utter attentiveness. He remembered the old woman’s longing for a grandchild, and her daughter’s longing for this child. But the situation was grim, and efforts futile.

The floor was in a state of mess. As Andrew stumbled over a sopping towel, the midwife cried that the baby was a stillborn. But Andrew did not pay attention to her. He continued his efforts for half an hour. In his last resort, he rubbed the child with a rough towel, crushing and releasing the little chest with both his hands, trying to get breath into that limp body.

Then miraculously, the tiny chest began heaving. Andrew felt giddy with the sense of life springing beneath his fingers; it almost made him faint. He intensified his efforts till they heard the child’s cry. The nurse sobbed hysterically as Andrew handed her the child. He felt weak and dazed. The room was in a state of mess and the mother lay still on the bed, still not out of the effect of the anaesthetic. The old woman still stood against the wall with her hands together and her lips moving in silent prayer.

Andrew went downstairs, took a long drink of water and as he stepped out he found Joe standing on the pavement with an anxious, eager face. Andrew told him that both were well.

It was nearly five o’clock and a few miners were already in the streets moving out after their first of the night shift. Andrew walked with them, tired, but eternally relieved at having “done something real at last.”

Birth Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
Why was Joe Morgan waiting for Andrew?
Answer:
Joe Morgan and his wife had been married nearly twenty years and were expecting their first child. At nearly midnight, Joe was worried and walked up and down, waiting for Andrew to reach Bryngower.

Question 2.
“Andrew now felt dull and listless.” Give two reasons.
Answer:
On Joe Morgan’s call, Andrew, along with Joe, set out for Joe’s house. The night air was cool and deep with quiet mystery but Andrew felt dull and listless because it was past midnight and he was reflecting about his own relationship with Christine, the girl he loved.

Question 3.
What did Andrew notice as he entered Joe’s house?
Answer:
As Andrew entered the door of Number 12, he saw a narrow stair which led up to a small bedroom, clean but poorly furnished, and lit only by an oil lamp. Here, Mrs Morgan’s mother, a tall, grey-haired woman of nearly seventy, and a stout, elderly midwife waited beside the patient.

Question 4.
What was the old woman’s fear? How did Andrew reassure her?
Answer:
When the old woman returned with a cup of tea, Andrew smiled faintly. He noticed the old woman, her wisdom in experience, and realized that there had been a period of waiting.

She was afraid he would leave the case, saying he would return later. But he assured her that he would not run away.

Question 5.
What were the only sounds that Andrew heard in the thick of the night?
Answer:
As Andrew sat by the kitchen fire, he noticed that it was a still night. The only sound that he could hear was the crackle of embers in the fireplace, the slow tick-tock of the wall clock and Morgan’s footsteps as he moved to and fro in the street outside.

Question 6.
What was weighing on Andrew’s mind as he waited with the patient?
Answer:
Andrew’s thoughts were heavy and muddled. The episode he had witnessed at Cardiff station still gripped him and made him gloomy. He thought of Bramwell, foolishly loyal to a woman who deceived him. He thought of Edward Page, tied to the shrewish Blodwen and of Denny, living unhappily, apart from his wife.

Question 7.
Why does the writer say that the old woman’s ‘meditation had pursued a different course’?
Answer:
While Andrew was thinking about the futility of marriage and relationships, the old woman was thinking about her daughter. She was concerned about both the mother and the child. She said that her daughter,

Susan, did not want chloroform if it would harm the baby. She really looked forward to having the child.

Question 8.
What dilemma was Andrew caught in? How did he resolve it?
Answer:
After an hour-long struggle, the child was bom lifeless and the mother was in a critical state. Andrew was tom between his desire to attempt to save the child, and his obligation towards the mother. He overcame the dilemma, instinctively; he gave the child to the nurse and turned his attention to Susan Morgan.

Question 9.
How did he revive the mother?
Answer:
To revive Susan Morgan, who lay collapsed and almost pulse-less, Andrew smashed a glass ampule, instantly, and injected the medicine. Then he flung down the hypodermic syringe and worked, ceaselessly, to revive the almost lifeless woman. After a few minutes of intense effort, her heart strengthened and she was safe.

Question 10.
What did Andrew think was wrong with the child? What did he do?
Answer:
Andrew saw the child was a perfectly formed boy. The head lolled on a thin neck and the limbs seemed boneless. He knew that the whiteness meant asphyxia pallida. He thought of the treatment, he remembered being used at the Samaritan. He applied the same to the stillborn child.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

The Ghat of The Only World Summary in English by Amitav Ghosh

The Ghat of The Only World by Amitav Ghosh About the Author

Writer Name	Amitav Ghosh
Born	11 July 1956 (age 63 years), Kolkata
Education	Delhi School of Economics, University of Oxford
Awards	Jnanpith Award, Sahitya Akademi Award, Ananda Puraskar, Dan David Prize, Padma Shri
Nominations	Booker Prize, International Booker Prize

The Ghat of The Only World Summary in English

On 25 April 2001, for the first time Agha Shahid Ali spoke to Amitav Gosh about his impending death although he had been getting treatment for cancer for about fourteen months. Amitav had telephoned to remind him of a friend’s invitation to lunch. He was to pick Shahid from his apartment. Despite treatment he seemed healthy except for irregular momentary failures of memory. That day, the writer heard him going through his engagement book when suddenly he said that he could not see anything. After a short silence he added that he hoped this was not an indication of his death.

Although they had talked a great deal but Shahid had never before talked of death. At first Amitav Ghosh thought . that he was joking and he tried to tell him that he would be well. But Shahid went on to say that he hoped that Amitav Ghosh would write something about him, after his death.

From the window of his study Amitav Ghosh could see the building in which he had shifted just a few months back. Earlier he had been living a few miles away, in Manhattan, when his malignant brain tumour was detected.

He then decided to move to Brooklyn, to be close to his youngest sister, Sameetah, who taught at the Pratt Institute. Shahid ignored Amitav’s reassurances. It was only when he began to laugh that he realised that Shahid was very serious. He wanted to be remembered through the written word. Shahid knew that for some writers things become real only in the process of writing. With them there is an inherent battle for dealing with loss and grief. He knew that Amitav would look for reasons to avoid writing about his death. Hence he had made sure that he would write about him. Therefore, Amitav noted all he remembered of his conversations with him. It was this that made it possible to write an article on him.

Amitav was influenced by Shahid’s work long before he met him. His voice was incomparable. It was highly lyrical and disciplined. It was engaged and yet deeply inward. His was a voice not ashamed to speak in a poetic style. None other than him could have written a line like: ‘Mad heart, be brave.’

In 1998, Amitav quoted a line from The Country Without a Post Office in an article that had a brief mention about Kashmir. Then all that he knew about Shahid was that he was from Srinagar and had studied in Delhi. The writer had been at Delhi University at about the same time but they had never met. Later, some common friend had got him to meet Shahid. In 1998 and 1999 they talked several time on the phone and even met a few times.

It was only after Shahid shifted to Brooklyn, the next year, that they found that they had a great deal in common. By this time Shahid’s condition was already serious, but their friendship grew. They shared common friends, and passions. Because of Shahid’s illness even the most ordinary talks were sharply perceptive.

One day, the writer Suketu Mehta, who also lives in Brooklyn, joined them for lunch. They decided to meet regularly. Often other writers would also join them. Once when a team arrived with a television camera, Shahid said: ‘I’m so shameless; I just love the camera.’

Shahid had a magical skill to change the ordinary into the enchanting. The writer recalls when on May 21, he accompanied Iqbal and Hena, Shahid’s brother and his sister to get him home from hospital. He was in hospital again, after several unsuccessful operations, for an operation of a tumour, to ease the pressure on his brain. His head was shaved and the tumour was visible with its edges outlined by metal stitches. When he was discharged he said that he was strong enough to walk but he was weak and dizzy and could not take more than a few steps.

Iqbal went to bring the wheelchair while the rest of them held him upright. Even at that moment his spirit had not deserted him. Shahid asked the hospital orderly with the wheelchair where he was from. When the man said ‘Ecuador’, Shahid clapped his hands cheerfully and said that he always wanted to learn Spanish to read the Spanish poet and dramatist Lorca.

A sociable person, Shahid, had a party in his living room everyday. He loved people, food and the spirit of festivity. The journey from the lobby of Shahid’s building to his door was a voyage between continents. The aroma of roganjosh and haale against the background of the songs and voices that were echoed out of his apartment, coupled with his delighted welcome was unforgettable. His apartment was always full of people. He also loved the view of the Brooklyn waterfront slipping, like a ghat, into the East River, under the glittering lights of Manhattan from his seventh floor apartment.

Almost to the very end he was the centre of everlasting celebration—of talk, laughter, food and poetry. Shahid relished his food. Even when his eyesight was failing, he could tell from the smell exactly the stage of the food being cooked and also the taste. Shahid was well known for his ability in the kitchen. He would plan for days planning and preparing for a dinner party.

It was through one such party, in Arizona, that he met James Merrill, the poet who completely changed the direction of his poetry. Shahid then began to try out strict, metrical patterns and verse forms. So great was the influence on Shahid’s poetry that in the poem in which he most clearly anticipated his own death, ‘I Dream I Am At the Ghat of the Only World,’ he honoured the evocative to Merrill: ‘SHAHID, HUSH. THIS IS ME, JAMES. THE LOVED ONE ALWAYS LEAVES.’

Shahid had a special passion for the food of his region, one variant of it in particular: ‘Kashmiri food in the Pandit style’. He said it was very important to him because of a repeated dream, in which all the Pandits had vanished from the valley of Kashmir and their food had become extinct. This was a nightmare that disturbed him and he mentioned it repeatedly both in his conversation and his poetry.

However, he also mentioned his love for Bengali food. He had never been to Calcutta but was introduced to it through his friends. He felt when you ate it you could see that there were so many things that you didn’t know about the country. It was because of various kinds of food, clothes and music we have been able to make a place where we can all come together because of the good things.

To him one of the many ‘good things’ was the music of Begum Akhtar. He had met her as a teenager and she had become a long-lasting presence and influence in his life. He also admired her for her ready wit. He was himself a very witty person. Once at Barcelona airport, he was asked by a security guard what he did. He said he was a poet. The guard woman asked him again what he was doing in Spain. Writing poetry, he replied. Finally, the frustrated woman asked if he was carrying anything that could be dangerous to the other passengers. To this Shahid said: ‘Only my heart.’

These moments were precious to Shahid. He longed for people to give him an opportunity to answer questions.

He was a brilliant teacher. On May 7, the writer attended Shahid’s class when he was teaching at Manhattan’s Baruch College in 2000. Unfortunately, this was his last class that he ever taught. The class was to be a brief one for he had an appointment at the hospital immediately afterwards. It was apparent from the moment they walked

in that the students adored him. They had printed a magazine and dedicated the issue to him. But Shahid was not in the least downcast by the sadness of the occasion. He was sparkling with life and brimming with joy. When an Indian student walked in late he greeted her saying that his Tittle sub-continental’ had arrived. He pretended to faint with pleasure. He felt meeting another South Asian evoked in him patriotic feelings.

He felt that the time he spent at Penn State was sheer pleasure as there he grew as a reader, as a poet, and as a lover. He became close to a lively group of graduate students, many of whom were Indian. Later he shifted to Arizona for a degree in creative writing. After this he worked in various colleges and universities. After 1975, Shahid lived mainly in America. His brother was already there and their two sisters later joined them. However, Shahid’s parents continued to live in Srinagar where he spent the summer months every year. He was pained to see the increasing violence in Kashmir from the late 1980s onwards. This had such an impact on him that it became one of the fundamental subjects of his work. It was in his writing of Kashmir that he produced his finest work. Ironically Shahid was not a political poet by choice.

The suffering in Kashmir tormented him but he was determined not to accept the role of victim. If he had he done so, he would have benefited by becoming a regular feature on talk shows and news programmes. But he never failed in his sense of duty. He respected religion but advocated the separation of politics and religious practice. He did not seek political answers in terms of policy and solutions. On the contrary he was all for the all-encompassing and universal betterment. This secular attitude could be attributed to his upbringing. In his childhood when he wanted to create a small Hindu temple in his room in Srinagar, his parents showed equal enthusiasm. His mother bought him murtis (idols) and other things to help him make a temple in his room.

He wanted to be remembered as a national poet but not a nationalist poet. In the title poem of The Country Without a Post Office, a poet returns to Kashmir to find the keeper of a fallen minaret. In this representation of his homeland, he himself became one of the images that were revolving around the dark point of stillness. He saw himself both as the witness and the martyr with his destiny tied with Kashmir’s.

On May 5, he had a telephonic conversation with the writer. This was a day before an important test (a scan) that would reveal the course of treatment. The scan was scheduled for 2.30 in the afternoon. The writer could get in touch with him only the next morning. Shahid told him clearly that his end was near and he would like to go back to Kashmir to die. His voice was calm and peaceful. He had planned everything. He said he would get his passport; settle his will as he didn’t want his family to go through any trouble after his death. And after settling his affairs he would go to Kashmir. He wanted to go back as because of the feudal system in Kashmir there would be so much support. Moreover his father was there. He did not want his family to have to make the journey after his death, like they had to with his mother.

However later, because of logistical and other reasons, he changed his mind about returning to Kashmir. He was content to be buried in Northampton. But his poetry underlined his desire to die and be buried in Kashmir.

The last time the writer saw Shahid was on 27 October, at his brother’s house in Amherst. He could talk erratically. He had come to terms with his approaching end. There were no signs of suffering or conflict. He was surrounded by the love of his family and friends and was calm, satisfied and at peace. He had once expressed his desire to meet his mother in the afterlife, if there was one. This was his supreme comfort. He died peacefully, in his sleep, at 2 a.m. on December 8.

Although his friendship with the writer spanned over a short duration, it left in him a huge void. He recalls his presence in his living room particularly when he read to them his farewell to the world: ‘I Dream I Am At the Ghat of the Only World…’

The Ghat of The Only World Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
When and why did Shahid mention his death to the writer?
Answer:
The first time that Shahid mentioned his approaching death was on 25 April 2001 although he had been under treatment for malignant brain tumour for about fourteen months. He was going through his engagement book when suddenly he said that he couldn’t see anything. Then after a pause he added that he . hoped this didn’t mean that he was dying.

Question 2.
What was the strange request that Shahid made to the writer?
Answer:
After Shahid broached the subject of death for the first time with the writer, he did not know how to respond. The writer tried to reassure him that he would be well but Shahid interrupted him and in an inquiring tone said that he hoped after his death, he would write something about him.

Question 3.
How did the writer realize that Shahid was serious about him writing about his death?
Answer:
When the writer tried reassuring him, Shahid ignored his reassurances. When he began to laugh the writer realised that he was very serious about what he had said. He wanted the writer to remember him not through the spoken words of memory and friendship, but through the written word.

Question 4.
Why did he want the writer to write something?
Answer:
Perhaps, Shahid knew all too well that for those writers for whom things become real only in the process of writing, there is an inherent struggle to deal with loss and sorrow. He knew that the writer’s nature would have led him to search for reasons to avoid writing about his death.

Question 5.
Where was Shahid staying during his illness?
Answer:
Earlier Shahid was staying a few miles away, in Manhattan. But after the tests revealed that he had a malignant brain tumour, he decided to move to Brooklyn, to be close to his youngest sister, Sameetah, who was teaching at the Pratt Institute, a few blocks away from the street where the writer lived.

Question 6.
‘Shahid, I will: I’ll do the best I can.’ What best did the writer want to do?
Answer:
The writer would have had various excuses for not writing about Shahid. He would have said that he was not a poet, their friendship was recent or that there were many others who knew him much better and would be writing from greater understanding and knowledge. Shahid seemed to have guessed this and insisted . that he wrote about him. The writer promised to try his best in doing justice to the memory of Shahid in his piece of writing.

Question 7.
What did the writer do in order to fulfill his promise to Shahid?
Answer:
The writer, from the day he was committed to writing an article, picked up his pen, noted the date, and wrote down everything he remembered of each conversation after that day. This he continued to do for the next few months. This record made it possible for him to fulfill the pledge he made that day.

Question 8.
What did Amitav Ghosh think of Shahid, the poet?
Answer:
Amitav Ghosh was introduced to Shahid’s work long before he met him. His 1997 collection, The Country Without a Post Office, had made a powerful impression on him. His voice was like none that had ever heard before. It was at once lyrical and fiercely disciplined, engaged and yet deeply inward. He knew of no one else who would even conceive of publishing a line like.- ‘Mad heart, be brave.’

Question 9.
‘….his illness did not impede the progress of our friendship.’ Why does the writer feel so?
Answer:
The writer got to know Shahid only after he moved to Brooklyn the next year, as he, too, lived in the same neighbourhood. Then they began to meet sometimes for meals and quickly discovered that they had a great deal in common. By this time of course Shahid’s condition was already serious, but despite that their friendship grew rapidly.

Question 10.
What were the interests that Shahid and Amitav shared?
Answer:
They had many a common friends, in India, America, and elsewhere, they shared a love for roganjosh, Roshanara Begum and Kishore Kumar; a mutual indifference to cricket and an equal attachment to old Bombay films.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

Ranga’s Marriage Summary in English by Masti Venkatesha Iyengar

Ranga’s Marriage by Masti Venkatesha Iyengar About the Author

Writer Name	Masti Venkatesha Iyengar
Born	6 June 1891, Hosa Halli
Died	6 June 1986, Bengaluru
Education	University of Madras
Awards	Jnanpith Award
Movies	Kakana Kote

Ranga’s Marriage Summary in English

Thfe title ‘Ranga’s Marriage’ seems more out of place than ‘Ranganatha Vivaha’ or ‘Ranganatha Vijaya’. But it is very appropriate as it is about Ranga’s marriage—a simple young boy from Hosahalli village. Hosahalli is yet another unfamiliar name as the English writers do not know of the existence of such a place and hence do not mention it. Most people are like sheep who follow others blindly. Hence, when neither the English writers nor the geographers referred to it, the cartographer did not put it on the map. However, the narrator feels Hosahalli is an important place in Mysore State.

Even Dr Gundabhatta who has visited many places thinks the same about this village. He feels that the raw mango trees in the village have such an extreme potency of sourness that they can certainly give a terrible cough. Just as the mango is special, so is everything else around the village. There is a creeper in the water of the village pond whose flowers are a feast to behold and its leaves are large enough to serve a meal on. The narrator, Shyama, feels that he is not given to rambling but when the topic of their village comes up, he can go on endlessly. He says if one wishes to visit the place then all one has to do is write to him.

He would tell them where Hosahalli is and what things are like here.

However, he would like to,share something that happened ten years ago. Unlike the present, ten years back most people did not know English. These days, people import a lot of English words into the language. This “priceless commodity, the English language”, the narrator says, was not so widespread in the village a decade ago.

The village accountant was the first person in the village to send his son, Rangappa (called Ranga), to Bangalore to study. Hence, Ranga’s homecoming was a great occasion. People announced his coming and also went to have a look at him. Fascinated by1 the crowd that was going to Ranga’s place, the narrator, too, went with them. Seeing so many people, Ranga came out with a smile on his face. In fact, everyone was surprised to see that Ranga was the same as he had been six months ago when he had first left the village.

When the crowd realised that Ranga was still the same, they dispersed but the narrator stayed back to talk to Rangappa. Ranga noticed him, came up to him and wished him respectfully. Ranga was a person who knew when it would be to his advantage to talk to someone and correctly measured people’s worth. He bent low to touch the narrator’s feet and the narrator blessed him saying, “May you get married soon.” After talking to Ranga for a few minutes, the narrator left.

The same afternoon, when the narrator was resting, Ranga came to his house with a couple of oranges. The narrator felt that he was a kind, thoughtful fellow and it would be good to have him marry and settle down. Soon, when he broached the topic of getting married, Ranga said he would not get married in the near future. He would wait and find the right girl. He quoted the example of an officer who got married six months back, when he was about thirty and his wife, twenty-five. He liked the idea of marrying a mature girl who would understand him, unlike a childish bride. Quoting the classic tale of Shakuntala, he said that Dushyantha would not have fallen in love with Shakuntala if she were young. He said that a man should marry a girl he admires and it would be impossible to admire an immature girl.

The narrator was concerned that the boy, who would make a good husband, had decided to remain a bachelor. But the narrator made up his mind to get him married.

Rama Rao’s niece, Ratna, had come to stay with him. She was from a big town, so she knew how to play the veena and the harmonium. She also had a sweet voice. Her parents had died, and her uncle had brought her home. The narrator felt that the girl would be a suitable bride for Ranga.

Since the narrator visited Rama Rao’s place often, Ratna was quite free with him. The very next morning he went to their house and told Rama Rao’s wife that he would send some buttermilk for them and she should ask Ratna to fetch it. Ratna came wearing a grand saree. The narrator told her to sit in his room and requested her to sing a song. He also sent for Ranga. While she was singing the song, Ranga reached the door. He was so enamoured by the voice that he stopped short at the doorstep as he did not want the singing to stop. But because he was curious . to see the singer, he peeped in. When Ratna saw the stranger, she immediately stopped. Ranga looked very disappointed when the singing stopped.

He asked the narrator why he had sent for him. The narrator noticed Ranga repeatedly glance at Ratna, as she stood at a distance with her head lowered. When Ranga realised the narrator had noticed him looking at her, he was self-conscious and expressed a desire to leave. But these were merely words as he did not make a move.

Ratna ran inside, overcome by shyness. Ranga asked who the girl was. But the narrator told him that it did not matter to either of them who she was as the writer was already married and Ranga had decided not to get married. When the narrator said that Ratna had got married a year back, Ranga was visibly disappointed. The next morning the narrator went to their Shastri or priest and astrologer and told him to keep everything ready to read the stars and also tutored him, what to say.

He met Ranga that afternoon; he was still looking lost in thought. He told Ranga to accompany him to see the Shastri to find out, astrologically, whether the stars were favourable for him or not. Ranga accompanied him. As planned, the Shastri pretended to make certain calculations and said that his problem had something to do with a girl. He added that the name of the girl was something found in the ocean such as Kamala (the lotus), Pachchi, (the moss) or Ratna (the precious stone). The narrator said that the girl in Rama Rao’s house was Ratna. He asked if there was any chance of their discussions bearing fruit. The Shastri was very positive and Ranga’s face revealed surprise and some happiness. The narrator said that the girl was married but there was a possibility of another suitable girl. Ranga’s face showed his disappointment.

The narrator and Ranga left the Shastri’s place. On their way, they crossed Rama Rao’s house. They saw Ratna standing at the door. The narrator went in alone and came out a minute later and announced that he was mistaken and that Ratna was not married. Quoting the Shastri’s prediction, the writer asked if his words were true. Ranga admitted that what the Shastri had said was absolutely true. Later that evening, the narrator joked with the Shastri about his predictions but Shastri did not like it.

Much later, one day Rangappa came to invite the narrator—Shyama for dinner. He said that it was his son, Shyama’s third birthday. The narrator was familiar with the English custom of naming the child after a person one liked. He asked Ranga, now that his wife was eight months pregnant, who was helping his mother to cook. Ranga said that his sister had come with her.

When the narrator went there for dinner, Shyama rushed to him and put his arms round his legs. The narrator kissed him and slipped a ring on his tiny little finger.

Ranga’s Marriage Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
What does the narrator feel he could call his narration instead of ‘Ranga’s Marriage’?
Answer:
The narrator feels that the title could have been something like ‘Ranganatha Vivaha’ or ‘Ranganatha Vijaya’ because it is about one of the local lads of the village—Rangappa— called Ranga. The word ‘marriage’ is reminiscent of the western influence on this country boy, who had gone to Bangalore to study.

Question 2.
What does the writer say about the Indians aping the West?
Answer:
The writer feels that Indians blindly follow the sahibs in England. Like a flock of sheep, they follow a single . one into the pit. He quotes the example of his village, Hosahalli, not finding a mention anywhere. He says when the English writers did not mention it, Indian geographers, too, did not ever refer to it.

Question 3.
Why were the people of the village curious to see Ranga?
Answer:
The people of the village were curious to see Ranga because not many villagers were learned in English back then when the story takes place. Ranga was the first one to go to Bangalore for his education and his homecoming was celebrated and people flocked to witness the change, ten years of Bangalore, wrought in him.

Question 4.
What example does the writer give in order to prove that English words have become a part of our everyday vocabulary?
Answer:
The narrator brings out how English became a part of everyday vocabulary through this example. When an old woman brought a bundle of firewood to Rama Rao’s house, her son told her he did not have any ‘change’, and promised to pay later. The poor woman did not understand the English word ‘change’ and went away, puzzled.

Question 5.
What about Ranga impressed the narrator in the first meeting?
Answer:
Ranga noticed the narrator when the crowd had melted away. He came to the narrator and did a namaskara respectfully, saying, “I am all right, with your blessings.” His namaskara was traditional and respectful, unlike the modem practice. He bent low to touch the narrator’s feet.

Question 6.
What kind of a bride was Ranga looking for? Why?
Answer:
Ranga wanted to marry a mature girl who would be able to talk lovingly. A very young girl was unlikely to understand him and could misconstrue his words, spoken in love. He cited the example of Dushayantha who had fallen in love with the mature Shakuntala. He felt, he could only marry a girl he admired.

Question 7.
Who was Ratna? Why was the narrator keen on getting her married to Ranga?
Answer:
Ratna was Rama Rao’s niece who had come to stay with him as her parents had died. She was from a big town, knew how to play the veena and the harmonium, and had a sweet voice. The writer considered her a . suitable match for Ranga.

Question 8.
How did the narrator arrange a meeting between Ratna and Ranga?
Answer:
The writer went to Rama Rao’s house and asked his wife to send Ratna to fetch the buttermilk that the narrator promised to send. When Ratna came, he told her to sit and requested her to sing a song. He then sent for Ranga. While she was singing, Ranga reached the door.

Question 9.
What was Ranga’s reaction? How did Ratna react to him?
Answer:
Ranga was taken in by the singing. He stopped at the threshold as he did not want the singing to stop, but was curious to see the singer. Carefully, he peeped in. The light coming into the room was blocked. Ratna looked up and seeing a stranger there suddenly stopped singing.

Question 10.
Explain: “The fellow said he would leave but did not make a move.”
Answer:
When Ratna stopped singing abruptly, Ranga said that it was his coming in that had stopped the singing. He expressed a desire to leave. He merely said it for the sake of saying, and he had no intention of going away. He was enamoured of the young girl.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

The Address Summary in English by Marga Minco

The Address by Marga Minco About the Author

Poet Name	Marga Minco
Born	31 March 1920 (age 100 years), Ginneken en Bavel, Netherlands
Spouse	Lambertus Hendrikus Voeten (m. 1945–1992)
Awards	P. C. Hooft Award, Ferdinand Bordewijk Prize
Movies	Het Bittere Kruid
Nationality	Dutch

The Address Summary in English

The narrator, a young girl, knocked on a door and as a lady opened it; she introduced herself as Mrs S’s daughter. The lady showed no sign of recognition. On the contrary, she held the door in a way to make clear that the narrator was not welcome. For some time, she kept staring quietly at the narrator. So much so that the narrator felt that the woman was not the person she had been looking for. The narrator recalled having seen her, briefly, once, years ago. But the woman soon stepped away from the door and let her in. The narrator noticed her wearing the narrator’s mother’s green knitted cardigan. The lady saw her looking at the cardigan and hid herself partially behind the door. When the narrator asked her about her mother, she said that she had thought that none of the people who had left had come back.

The lady regretted her inability to do anything for her but the narrator insisted on talking to her as she had especially come all the way to meet her. However, the lady refused to talk to her and the narrator had no option but to leave.

The narrator stood on the doorstep and looked at the nameplate again. It read “Dorling” and a little inside was “Number 46”.

She walked back to the station, thinking about her mother who had given her that address, years ago when during the first half of the War she had gone home for a few days. She had, then, at once realised that various things were missing. Her mother had then told her about Mrs Dorling, an old contact of hers. She visited their place regularly and every time she went back, she took something home with her. These things included table silver, antique plates, large vases, and crockery. She used to tell the narrator’s mother that she wanted to save all her nice things if they had to leave.

The mother seemed to have nothing against her. However, the narrator was not convinced but on account of her mother’s disapproving looks, they didn’t discuss it again.

The narrator, walking through familiar places for the first time since the War, reached the station. The sights evoked memories from a dear time.

She recalled her first meeting with Mrs Dorling. It was just the day after her mother had talked about her. Her mother had introduced her. She had noticed the woman walk out with the heavy case. Her mother informed her that she lived in Marconi Street—Number 46. She had asked her to remember that.

Now, the narrator had come after a long time. At first, after the War, she had not been interested in and was also afraid of going back. She was scared of facing the things that had belonged to her mother and that would remind her of a past that was no longer there. These things would just evoke painful memories.

But slowly and steadily, everything became more normal again and like the rest, the narrator had adjusted to her new life. Strangely, later she became curious whether all the belongings that they had left behind, would still be at that address. She felt the urge to see them, touch them and recall the memories associated with them.

After her first futile visit to Mrs Dorling’s house, she decided to try a second time. This time, a girl of about fifteen opened the door and let her in. Her mother was not at home. The narrator followed the girl along the passage. She noticed an old-fashioned iron Hanukkah candle-holder that the narrator’s family had never used as it was much more bulky than a single candlestick.

The girl led her to the living room. The narrator was dismayed. The room had things that she had wanted to see again but which now seemed to have a strange, stressful effect. She could not place what the exact reason was—it could be because of the inelegant way everything was arranged, or because of the ugly furniture or the humid smell in the room. She noticed the woollen tablecloth on which, she recalled, the burn mark that had never been repaired.

The girl put cups on the tea table and poured tea from a white pot with a gold border on the lid. Then, the girl opened a box and took some spoons out. The familiarity of all these things clouded the narrator’s mind. These emotions were different than any other that she had known.

The narrator complimented the young girl on the ‘nice’ box. She laughed and said that her mother had told her that it was an antique. She said that they had lots of antiques. She pointed round the room. The narrator noticed various things that brought back memories of the past. She remembered that as a child she had always liked the apple on the pewter plate. The young girl told the narrator that at one time, they even ate in the plates hanging on the wall. The narrator, by then, found the bum mark on the tablecloth. The girl looked curiously at the narrator.

The narrator said that one gets so used to touching such lovely things in the house that one really notices it when they are missing, that which needed repairing or must have been lent. She continued how her mother had once asked her to polish the silver—the spoons, forks and knives. Before that she had not even realised that the cutlery they used for eating, every day, was made of silver.

The girl walked to the sideboard to open a drawer and show the narrator what they ate with, but by then it was time for her to catch her train. As she walked out, she heard the jingling of spoons and forks.

Having walked out, she wanted to wipe out her past. She realised that the objects that are associated in one’s memory with the familiar life of earlier times, lose their value, at once, when one is cut off from them. She did not need them in her small rented room where the scraps of paper that they used as blackout paper still hung along the windows and no more than a handful of cutlery could fit in the narrow table drawer. She decided to forget the past.

The Address Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
Where had the narrator come? Why was she back?
Answer:
The narrator is a Dutch Jew, who had to leave Holland during the Second World War. She had left along with her mother for safety. Now she was back to where her past ‘things’ lay. She wanted to see and touch her belongings in order to relive those memories.

Question 2.
Whom did the narrator desire to meet in Holland? Why?
Answer:
The narrator was told by her mother to remember ‘Number 46 Marconi Street’, where Mrs Dorling lived; she had insisted on keeping their things safely till the war was over. After the war, the narrator was curious about their possessions that were still at that address and she went to meet Mrs Dorling.

Question 3.
What kind of a welcome did the narrator get from Mrs Dorling?
Answer:
Mrs Dorling was cold and indifferent and evidently displeased to see the author. In fact, she tried to prevent her from entering by blocking her entrance. Later, she said it was not convenient for her to talk to the narrator at that point of time and refused to meet her.

Question 4.
When did the narrator first learn about the existence of Mrs Dorling?
Answer:
The narrator recalled the time when she was home during the first half of the War. She had noticed that various things were missing. Her mother then told her about Mrs Dorling, an old acquaintance who renewed their contact, and came regularly, each time, carrying away some of their things.

Question 5.
What was the narrator’s mother’s opinion about Mrs Dorling?
Answer:
The narrator’s mother considered Mrs Dorling a very benevolent lady, who strived to ‘save’ their ‘nice things’ by carrying some of them away, each time she visited. The narrator’s mother was unable to see through the lady who wished to cheat her out of her valuables, instead she felt grateful to Mrs Dorling.

Question 6.
What did the narrator recall about her first meeting with Mrs Dorling?
Answer:
The narrator saw Mrs Dorling for the first time on the morning after the day she came to know about her. Coming downstairs, the narrator saw her mother about to see someone out. It was a woman, dressed in a brown coat and a shapeless hat, with a broad back; she nodded and picked up the suitcase.

Question 7.
Why did the narrator return to Marconi Street after a long time?
Answer:
The narrator returned to Marconi Street after a long time because in the beginning, after the Liberation, she was not interested in all that stored stuff. She had lost her mother and was also afraid of being confronted with things that remained as a painful reminder to their past.

Question 8.
How did the narrator decide to go back to the ‘things’?
Answer:
Gradually, when everything became normal again—the bread was of a lighter colour and she had a bed to sleep in, securely, and the surroundings became familiar again—the narrator was curious about all the possessions that must still be at that address that her mother had talked about and went there to relive her memories.

Question 9.
Explain: “I stopped, horrified. I was in a room I knew and did not know.”
Answer:
When the narrator went to Mrs Dorling’s house the second time, a girl of about fifteen let her in. She saw familiar things but arranged differently that lent unfamiliarity to the surroundings. She found herself surrounded by things that she had wanted to see again but which really oppressed her in that strange atmosphere.

Question 10.
Why did the narrator not want to remember the place?
Answer:
The narrator had primarily returned for the sake of memories that were linked to the things that had once belonged to her mother. However, she realized, the objects linked in her memory with the familiar life that she had once lived lost their value as they had been removed and put in strange surroundings.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

The Summer of The Beautiful White Horse Summary in English by William Saroyan

The Summer of The Beautiful White Horse by William Saroyan About the Author

Poet Name	William Saroyan
Born	31 August 1908, Fresno, California, United States
Died	18 May 1981, Fresno, California, United States
Awards	Academy Award for Best Story, Pulitzer Prize for Drama, New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award for Best American Play
Movies	The Human Comedy, Ithaca, My Heart Is in the Highlands
Nationality	American

The Summer of The Beautiful White Horse Summary in English

The narrator, Aram, remembers an incident which took place one summer when he was nine years old. He was asleep in his room at four in the morning, when he heard a tap on the window. He jumped out of bed and looked out of the window. There was his cousin, Mourad, sitting on a beautiful white horse. Mourad invited the narrator for a ride.

Those were the days when the world looked wonderful and life was like an enjoyable and unexplained dream. Aram also knew that Mourad enjoyed every minute of his life but this was even beyond his expectations. Since his earliest memories, he had had a strong desire to ride. But their tribe, Garoghlanian, was so poor that none of them understood where they even got money for food. Most importantly, they had been famous for their honesty for about eleven centuries, even when, as believed, they were the wealthiest family in the world. They were known to be proud, honest and an ethical clan and were incapable of taking advantage of anyone, leave alone stealing.

Aram could not believe that the horse had anything to do with his cousin Mourad or for that matter with any of the other members of their family. Mourad could have not bought the horse and so must have stolen it. Hence, he felt both delighted and frightened. He asked Mourad where he had stolen the horse from. Mourad did not deny that he had stolen it but asked Aram to jump out of the window, for a ride.

In his childlike innocence and simplicity, Aram made himself believe that stealing a horse for a ride was not the same thing as stealing money. Even if it was, it would not be as serious as stealing if one was so passionately fond of horses, the way Mourad and he were. It could be called stealing only if they sold the horse.

Aram changed his clothes, jumped out of the window, leaped onto the horse behind Mourad. Then, they lived at the edge of town, on Walnut Avenue. Behind their house were vineyards, orchards, irrigation ditches and country roads. They rode to the Olive Avenue. They were happy with themselves; the fresh air seemed new and lovely to breathe. They were so happy that Mourad began to sing. Aram felt that there was a crazy element in the tribe. Each family had a passionate streak in them and in their family Mourad was the one who was supposed to carry the wild trait.

Before Mourad, it was Uncle Khosrove who was supposed to be crazy. He was so ill-tempered and impatient that he stopped anyone from talking by roaring. Once his son Arak went running to him at the barber’s shop, where his father was having his moustache trimmed, to tell him their house was on fire. Khosrove sat up in the chair and roared. The barber repeated what the boy had said and Khosrove roared at him, too, to stop as it was “no harm”.

Mourad was considered the natural descendant of this man, although Mourad’s father, Zorab, was a practical man. In their tribe, traits were not necessarily inherited from parents. The tribe, from the beginning, had been impulsive.

Aram and Mourad let the horse run for as long as it felt like running. Then, Mourad wanted to ride alone. Mourad kicked his heels into the horse and shouted, “Vazire, run”. The horse stood on its hind legs and then ran. It was one of the loveliest sights. After five minutes of running across a field of dry grass to the irrigation ditch, they returned. I was then Aram’s turn to ride. The horse, instead of running to the irrigation ditch, ran down the road to the vineyard of Dikran Halabian where it began to leap over vines. It leapt over seven vines and then Aram fell off. The horse continued running. Mourad went after the horse and it took him half an hour to find the horse and bring him back.

By then it was broad daylight and people were awake. However, Mourad did not seem worried about hiding the horse. Aram soon realised that Mourad had been taking these early morning rides for some time and had got him for a ride today as he knew how much Aram wanted to ride. Mourad told Aram that if people found out about the horse he was supposed to say that they had started riding that morning.

Mourad walked the horse to the bam of a deserted vineyard that once belonged to a farmer named Fetvajian. It was difficult to make the horse behave well. But Mourad said that he had an understanding with the horse and got him under control. Aram went home and ate a filling breakfast. In the afternoon, his uncle Khosrove came to their house for coffee and cigarettes. He sat in the parlour, talking, when another visitor, a farmer, arrived. His name was John Byro. He was sad and mentioned that his white horse had been stolen a month ago and was still untraced. Uncle Khosrove became very annoyed and shouted that when they had all lost their homeland, crying over a horse was pointless. John Byro protested that his carriage was no good without a horse and that he had walked for ten miles to get there. But Uncle Khosrove roared yet again saying that he had legs.

The farmer said that there was a pain in his lefjt leg and Uncle Khosrove shouted that he should not pay attention to it. He did not seem to care that the horse had cost John Byro sixty dollars as he said that he did not value money. When Uncle Khosrove went away, Aram’s mother tried to explain to John Byro that Uncle Khosrove had “a gentle heart” but was simply homesick. After the farmer went away, Aram ran to Mourad’s house. Mourad was sitting under a peach tree and nursing the. hurt wing of a young robin, which could not fly. Aram told him of John Byro’s visit. He requested Mourad not to give the horse back until he had leamt to ride. Mourad said that it would take him a year to learn riding. They could certainly not keep the horse for a year as that would amount to stealing and a member of the Garoghlanian family could never steal. He would not keep the horse for more than six months and then it “must go back to its true owner”.

For two weeks, early every morning, Mourad and the narrator took the horse out of the bam of the deserted vineyard where they had hidden it and rode it. Aram was thrown off every time but he did not lose hope and hoped to ride the way Mourad did.

One morning on their way to Fetvajian’s bam they met the farmer John Byro. Mourad wished him as John Byro observed the horse keenly. He asked the boys the name of the horse. Mourad said that in Armenian its name was “My Heart”. John Byro wanted to look into the horse’s mouth as it looked so much like the one he had that was stolen. After looking into the mouth of the horse the farmer said that he could have sworn that it was his horse if he didn’t know their family was famed for their honesty. He was not a mistrustful man so he would believe his heart rather than his eyes. Saying which, he walked away.

The next day, early morning, they took the horse to John Byro’s vineyard and put it in the bam. The dogs followed them around without making a sound. Mourad put his arms around the horse, pressed his nose into the horse’s nose, patted it, and then they came away. That afternoon, John Byro went to Aram’s house in his carriage and showed his mother the horse that had been stolen and returned. He said that that he was confused as the horse was stronger and even better tempered. Uncle Khosrove heard this, became irritated and shouted at him to be quiet as his horse had been returned.

The Summer of The Beautiful White Horse Summary Questions and Answers

Question 1.
What does the writer suggest by beginning the story with the following words, “One day back there in the good old days…”?
Answer:
The beginning of the story is suggestive of the fact that the episode that is going to be narrated is not one from the recent past. On the contrary, it is something that happened years back. The words ‘good old days’, suggest that the times in the past were better than what they are at present.

Question 2.
What does the writer say about the ‘good old days’?
Answer:
The ‘good old days’ refer to a time when the narrator was about nine years old. Then, to him, the world was full of all possible kinds of splendour. Life then seemed charming and was as alluring as a mystifying dream.

Question 3.
What was the narrator’s first reaction to the horse?
Answer:
When the narrator’s cousin, Mourad, came to his house at four in the morning and woke him up, Aram couldn’t believe what he saw. Mourad was riding a beautiful white horse. He stuck his head out of the window and rubbed his eyes to make sure that he wasn’t dreaming.

Question 4.
What did the narrator think of Mourad?
Answer:
Unlike the rest of the world, it was only Aram who did not feel that Mourad was ‘crazy’. Aram knew that Mourad enjoyed being alive more than anybody else, and ‘who had ever fallen into the world by mistake’.

Question 5.
What were the chief traits of the members of his family that the narrator could recall?
Answer:
The narrator felt that although the people of his clan were poverty stricken, yet they were honest. They were proud, honest, and they believed in right and wrong. None of them would take advantage of anybody in the world, let alone steal.

Question 6.
Why was the narrator both delighted and frightened at the same time?
Answer:
The narrator was delighted at the magnificence of the horse. He could smell it, hear it breathing, which excited him but what frightened him was that Mourad could not have bought the horse. The narrator realized, if he had not bought it, he must have stolen it.

Question 7.
How did the narrator establish that Mourad had stolen the horse?
Answer:
When the initial fascination and surprise wore out, Aram asked Mourad where he had stolen the horse from. Aram was certain that no one in their family could afford one. When Mourad did not deny having stolen the horse, and evaded that question, Aram was sure that he had stolen the horse.

Question 8.
How did Aram justify the act of stealing the horse?
Answer:
Aram felt that stealing a horse for a ride was not the same thing as stealing something else, such as money. Perhaps, it was not stealing at all because they were crazy about horses. He felt it would not be called stealing until they offered to sell the horse, which they would never do.

Question 9.
What did Aram feel about Mourad’s temperament?
Answer:
According to Aram, Mourad had a crazy streak. That made him the natural descendant of Uncle Khosrove who had a crazy element in him. This crazy streak was common in their tribe and need not be passed on from a father to the son. The people of the tribe had been, from the beginning, unpredictable and unrestrained.

Question 10.
What happened when Aram tried to ride the horse?
Answer:
When Aram kicked into the muscles of the horse, it reared and snorted. Then it began to run. It ran down the . road to the vineyard of Dikran Halabian where it began to leap over vines. The horse leaped over seven vines and Aram fell off but the horse continued running.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

Father To Son Poem Summary in English by Elizabeth Jennings

Father To Son Poem by Elizabeth Jennings About the Poet

Name	Elizabeth Jennings
Born	18 July 1926, Boston, United Kingdom
Died	26 October 2001, Bampton, United Kingdom
Education	St Anne’s College, Oxford High School
Awards	Cholmondeley Award

Father To Son Poem Summary in English

This poem is a lament of the father because the chasm between his son and him has widened over the years.

The father feels that he does not understand his son although they have lived under the same roof for years. He regrets that the son seems to have become a stranger to him. The father wants to start afresh; recall moments when the son was a child. He feels that essentially, a part of the relationship between the two has been destroyed by the father.

The love the father showered upon his son fell on barren ground, i.e., it was unreciprocated. They talk to each other like strangers and there is no sign of any agreement between them. The father tried to fashion the child into a likeness of him. But they have grown apart. The father finds it impossible to share his son’s likes and dislikes.

There is total lack of communication between them. The father would want his son to return to him like the prodigal son. He would value them coming closer rather than the son moving away. The father feels he would forgive his son. Out of their grief, a new love would blossom.

As father and son, they ought to share the same world but unfortunately they cannot understand each other. The father is grieved and it is his sorrow that at times takes the form of anger. Both of them try to reach out to each other but in vain. The gulf is too wide.

Father To Son Poem Summary Questions and Answers

1. I do not understand this child
Though we have lived together now
In the same house for years.
I know Nothing of him, so try to build
Up a relationship from how
He was when small. Yet have I killed

a. Who is the ‘I’ in these lines? Who is the ‘child’?
Answer:
The father is referred to as the ‘I’ in these lines. His son is the ‘child’.

b. What is his complaint?
Answer:
His complaint is that he does not understand his son despite their living together.

c. What does he want to do now?
Answer:
He now wants to build a relationship from the beginning.

d. What has he ‘killed’?
Answer:
He has killed the connection or rapport between him and his son.

2. The seed I spent or sown it where
The land is his and none of mine?
We speak like strangers, there’s no sign
Of understanding in the air.
This child is built to my design
Yet what he loves I cannot share.

a. What has he ‘sown’?
Answer:
He had nurtured the child which he compares to seeds, on love and understanding.

b. What is the relationship between them like?
Answer:
The father and son are like strangers.

c. What is lacking between the two?
Answer:
Sharing and understanding is lacking between the two.

d. What can he not share?
Answer:
The father cannot share his son’s opinion, and his likes and dislikes.

3. Silence surrounds us. I would have
Him prodigal, returning to
His father’s house, the home he knew,
Rather than see him make and move
His world. I would forgive him too,
Shaping from sorrow a new love.

a. Explain: “Silence surrounds us”.
Answer:
There is no communication between the father and the son.

b. Explain:- “I would have Him prodigal, returning to His father’s house.”
Answer:
In the Bible, when the recklessly extravagant son returned, the father forgave him his earlier sins as his coming home showed his regret. Similarly, the father is prepared to forgive his son if he comes back to him.

c. Name the poetic device used in the line: “I would have Him prodigal, returning to His father’s house.”
Answer:
Allusion. The prodigal son alludes to the parable of Cain and Abel from the Bible.

d. What would the father not want the son to do?
Answer:
The father would not want the son to move away into his own world.

e. What would the father do if the son came back to him?
Answer:
The father would forgive his son and from their sorrow love would arise again.

4. Father and son, we both must live
On the same globe and the same land,
He speaks: I cannot understand
Myself, why anger grows from grief
We each put out an empty hand,
Longing for something to forgive.

a. How do they live?
Answer:
They live in the same place, yet they are very distant.

b. What emotions does the father feel?
Answer
The father is aggrieved and angry at the son distancing himself.

c. Explain: “We each put out an empty hand”.
Answer:
The father and son try to reach out to each other but in vain.

d. What do they long for?
Answer:
They long to forgive and forget the past and start afresh.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

Childhood Poem Summary in English by Markus Natten

Childhood Poem Summary in English

The poet regrets having lost the innocence that he had as a child. He feels that after he turned twelve, he realised that hell and heaven did not exist as had been taught to him. He rationalised his thoughts and drew his own conclusions. He ceased to have faith in people and became a little more sceptical.

The poet could have lost his childhood when he realised that adults were hypocritical. He understood that although they sermonised on the need to be loving, yet they did not follow that dictum. They did not love the people around them. Their love was merely a facade.

Perhaps, he lost his childhood when he became more individualistic. He refused to share what was his. He learnt to think for himself. It was at that point of time that he learnt to assert himself.

The poet knows that he has lost his childhood and he laments its loss. He is saddened by the fact that he cannot regain it. He knows, with certainty, childhood can be found still, veiled, in a young child’s face.

Childhood Poem Summary Questions and Answers

1. When did my childhood go?
Was it the day I ceased to be eleven,
Was it the time I realized that Hell and Heaven,
Could not be found in Geography,
And therefore could not be,
Was that the day!

a. “When did my childhood go?” What does the poet want to convey? Name the poetic device.
Answer:
The poet uses interrogation to convey a strong affirmation. He wants to convey that he has lost his childhood.

b. When did the poet lose his childhood?
Answer:
The poet lost his childhood when he was twelve years old.

c. What did he become conscious of then?
Answer:
The poet became rationalistic.

d. What did he stop believing?
Answer:
The poet stopped believing that heaven and hell were places that could be found on the globe.

e. What was different about him earlier?
Answer:
The poet was more naive and trusting earlier when he was younger.

2. When did my childhood go?
Was it the time I realized that adults were not
all they seemed to be,
They talked of love and preached of love,
But did not act so lovingly,
Was that the day!

a. When did the poet lose his childhood?
Answer:
The poet lost his childhood when he realized that there was hypocrisy in the world.

b. What did he observe about the adults?
Answer:
The poet observed that adults did not practise what they preached.

c. What did they preach?
Answer:
Adults advocated love.

d. What virtue was the poet deprived of then?
Answer:
The poet was deprived of his insight.

3. When did my childhood go?
Was it when I found my mind was really mine,
To use whichever way I choose,
Producing thoughts that were not those of other people
But my own, and mine alone
Was that the day!

a. When did the poet lose his childhood?
Answer:
The poet lost his childhood when he became individualistic.

b. How did he change?
Answer:
The poet started thinking with his own mind.

c. What did he realize?
Answer:
The poet realized that he had become possessive of his own things and had started thinking for himself.

d. What virtue was the poet deprived of then?
Answer:
The poet was deprived of sharing and compassion.

4. Where did my childhood go?
It went to some forgotten place,
That’s hidden in an infant’s face,
That’s all I know.

a. When did the poet lose his childhood?
Answer:
The poet lost his childhood when he turned twelve.

b. Why does the poet feel that it has gone to some forgotten place?
Answer:
The poet feels his childhood has gone to some forgotten place because it is untraceable now.

c. Where could it be hiding? Why?
Answer:
Childhood could be hiding in a young child’s face because that is the only place where the poet feels he has seen it, lately.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding. A Photograph Summary Explained in this article

A Photograph Summary in English by Shirley Toulson

A Photograph by Shirley Toulson About the Poet

Name	Shirley Toulson
Born	20 May 1924, Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom
Died	15th May 2014
Education	B.A Literature from Brockenhurst College in London
Books	The Drovers, The Celtic Year a Celebration of Celtic Christian Saints Sites and Festivals More

A Photograph Summary in English

The poet views the photograph, taken before she was bom, of her mother and her two cousins. It was of the three girls, when they went to the beach. The two cousins were younger than the narrator’s mother, who was about twelve years old then. Both the cousins were on either side of the mother holding her hands. The three of them smiled at the camera as the uncle clicked the photograph. The camera had caught them smiling as the breeze ruffled their hair.

The poet notices her mother’s sweet face of a time before she was bom. Her face had changed much, unlike the sea which had remained unchanged. The sea washed their unbearably short-lived feet. The mother is now dead. The poet recalls how twenty or thirty years later her mother would look at the photograph and recall with amusement how, as young girls, they had been dressed for the beach. She had been out for a holiday to the beach years ago and felt nostalgic about it, just as the poet felt when she relived the memories of her mother. She recalled with pain the memories of her mother’s laughter. She found it difficult to come to terms with her mother’s death. She remembers her mother who died a long time ago: she has now lived without her for almost half of her life; and this fact overwhelms her into silence.

A Photograph Summary Questions and Answers

Read the lines and answer the questions that follow.

Question 1.
The cardboard shows me how it was
When the two girl cousins went paddling,
Each one holding one of my mother’s hands,
And she the big girl—some twelve years or so.
All three stood still to smile through their hair
At the uncle with the camera….

a. What does the ‘cardboard’ denote?
Answer:
It is a photograph.

b. What is seen on the cardboard?
Answer:
On the ‘cardboard’ three girls can be seen—one of whom is the poet’s mother.

c. What were they doing?
Answer:
They were playing in water near the seashore.

d. Why were the girls holding the poet’s mother’s hand?
Answer:
The poet’s mother was a little older than the two of her cousins, around twelve years old, and was thus holding on to their hands.

e. What was the uncle doing?
Answer:
The uncle was clicking their photograph.

f. Where is the mother now?
Answer:
The poet’s mother is dead.

g. “All three stood still to smile through their hair.” What does this suggest?
Answer:
They were smiling with tousled hair over their faces because of the breeze.

h. Who were the other two girls?
Answer:
The two girls were the poet’s mother’s cousins—Betty and Dolly.

2. A sweet face,
My mother’s, that was before I was born.
And the sea, which appears to have changed less,
Washed their terribly transient feet.

a. Who is the ‘I’ in these lines?
Answer:
The poet is the ‘I’ in these lines.

b. What did she feel about her mother?
Answer:
The poet thought her mother had a sweet face.

c. What has not changed?
Answer:
The sea has remained unchanged over the years.

d. What has changed?
Answer:
The faces of the people have changed. They are older. The poet’s mother is dead.

e. What is suggested by the words ‘transient feet’?
Answer:
The words suggest the transience of life.

f. Name the poetic device used in the line: “Washed their terribly transient feet.”
Answer:
(a) transferred epithet
(b) synecdoche

3. Some twenty—thirty—years later
She ’d laugh at the snapshot. ‘See Betty
And Dolly, ’ she ’d say, ‘and look how they
Dressed us for the beach. ’ The sea holiday
Was her past, mine is her laughter, Both wry
With the laboured ease of loss.

a. Who is the ‘she’ in these lines?
Answer:
The poet’s mother is referred to as ‘she’ in these lines.

b. What was she looking at?
Answer:
She was looking at her photograph that was clicked twenty to thirty years back.

c. Who were Betty and Dolly?
Answer:
Betty and Dolly were cousins of the poet’s mother.

d. Why was she amused?
Answer:
She was amused at the way she and her cousins were dressed for the beach.

e. What are the two things that are ‘a matter of the past’?
Answer:
(a) To the poet’s mother, her childhood is a thing of the past.
(b) To the poet, her mother’s laughter was a thing of the past.

f. What is suggested by ‘the laboured ease of loss’? Name the poetic device used.
Answer:
It was a painful effort to recall the time that has so easily slipped away. The poetic device used is oxymoron.

4. Now she’s been dead nearly as many years
As that girl lived. And of this circumstance
There is nothing to say at all.
Its silence silences

a. Who had been dead many years?
Answer:
The mother has been dead for many years.

b. Who is that girl?
Answer:
The young girl is the mother, aged twelve.

c. Why does the poet say “As that girl lived”?
Answer:
To the mother, the little girl was the past that was true a long time back just as the mother was a living reality to the poet years back.

d. Explain: “Its silence silences”. Name the poetic device used.
Answer:
The stillness of the photograph and the overwhelming sense of her mother’s loss mutes the poet. The poetic device used is paradox.

We have decided to create the most comprehensive English Summary that will help students with learning and understanding.

The Voice of The Rain Poem Summary in English by Walt Whitman

The Voice of The Rain Poem by Walt Whitman Poet

Name	Walt Whitman
Born	31 May 1819, West Hills, New York, United States
Died	26 March 1892, Camden, New Jersey, United States
Poems	Leaves of Grass, Song of Myself, O Captain! My Captain!
Awards	Golden Kite Award for Picture Book Illustration

The Voice of The Rain Poem Summary in English

The poet gazed at the gentle spell of rain and asked of the rain who it was. Much to the surprise of the poet, it answered him. The rain said that it is the poetry of the earth. It is never-ending. It is intangible as it rises out of the land, from the endless sea before it ascends towards heaven. There it changes its form, yet, in essence, it is the same. It once again comes down to earth to refresh the dry earth, to bathe tiny particles and settle the dust-layers of the world. As it falls on the earth, the seeds that hitherto lay dormant and lifeless, spring to life. The rain says that the earth is its creator and it gives back life to it. Rain makes the globe wholesome and beautifies it.

Thus, the rain takes a full circle and comes back to its creator, just like the song that originates from its birthplace and after completion, travels around the earth, whether one takes heed of it or not, and then comes back to its place of origin with love.

The Voice of The Rain Poem Summary Questions and Answers

1. And who art thou? said I to the soft-falling shower,
Which, strange to tell, gave me an answer, as here translated:
I am the Poem of Earth, said the voice of the rain,

a. Who are the two people in conversation?
Answer:
The poet and the rain are the two people in conversation.

b. What did the poet ask?
Answer:
The poet asked the rain who it was.

c. Why was it ‘strange to tell’?
Answer:
The rain replied to the poet’s query and gave an extraordinary answer.

d. What does the rain call itself? Why?
Answer:
The rain calls itself the rhyme of the earth. Like a song, it travels back to its source.

2. Eternal I rise impalpable out of the land and the bottomless sea,
Upward to heaven, whence, vaguely form’d, altogether
changed, and yet the same,
I descend to lave the droughts, atomies, dust-layers of the globe,
And all that in them without me were seeds only, latent, unborn;
And forever, by day and night, I give back life to my own origin,
And make pure and beautify it,

a. Where does the rain rise from?
Answer:
The rain rises from the land and the sea.

b. Why is it impalpable?
Answer:
It is intangible—in the form of vapour.

c. Where does it rise to?
Answer:
It rises upward towards heaven.

d. What happens there?
Answer:
The cloud changes its form.

e. What impact does it have on earth?
Answer:
The rain, once again, comes down to earth to wash away paucity, to bathe tiny particles and the dust- layers of the world.

f. What is the effect on seeds?
Answer:
The rain puts life into the seeds; helps them germinate.

g. What is the impact on earth?
Answer:
The rain purifies and beautifies the earth.

h. How does the rain complete its cycle?
Answer:
The rain sets out from the land; goes heavenwards; and comes back again to the land.

3. (For song, issuing from its birth-place, after fulfilment, wandering,
Reck’d or unreck’d, duly with love returns.)

a. What does the song do?
Answer:
The song sets out, wanders, completes its journey and comes back.

b. How is it like the rain?
Answer:
It comes back after a full cycle and so is like the rain.

c. What do the words ‘reck’d or unreck’d’ suggest?
Answer:
Cared or uncared.

d. How does a song seek its fulfilment?
Answer:
A song seeks its fulfilment by roaming; travelling places before it returns.