Roy is directed by Vikramjit
Singh. A film lavished with dollops of visual style and aural sophistication,
Roy would have been a runaway cinematic delight if only its makers had coupled
its impressive surface gloss with a modicum of substance. Vikramjit Singh make
the two-and-a-half hour movie passable tolerable. We can say that it deals with
writing and painting on one level, and romantic thriller.
I like to movie beginning. I want
to say my readers that Roy isn’t an easy tap to grasp and it demands your
intelligence to solve the puzzle in the end. If we talking about the than we
can’t understands easily that what actually happen in the movie.
I want to say
that beginning and end of the movie is very interesting or we can say that if
we miss the beginning and end of the movie than we lose the real charm of the
movie.
I like to end of the movie as we know that movie start with filmmaker
Kabir (Arjun Rampal) interview about his upcoming film. He is enjoying the
super success of his two flicks inspired by the real life of a con Roy (Ranbir
Kapoor) who never caught.
He geared up for the third part of the series and he
chooses Malaysia as its shooting destination. He meets Ayesha Aamir (Jacqueline
Fernandez) another film maker from London. We know that when hero and heroine
meet with each other romance blooms between them.
But here due to Kabir’s
conning approach for writing his flick’s story Ayesha leaves him. So Kabir lose
his confidence in writing. Ranbir Kapoor as Roy is at simplicity.
He is cool and calm. He speaks from his eyes
and utter lesser dialogues to convey his views. He has limited scenes or rather
say has an extended appearance. I think director could have utilized him more…
We appreciate Jacqueline’s role.
She gives her best act. In twin roles as a movie director and as an art
enthusiast she gives to compelling display of performance unlike her earlier
once. Her dialogues are well timed.
Music and song is also attracting
to audience. The energy only builds when the brilliant numbers like Sooraj
Dooba Hai, Chitiya Kalaiya and Tu Hai Ki Nahi among others hit the screens.
While they are beautifully picture, the timing is abrupt of couple of songs.
Undoubtedly. Roy is visually
rich. We appreciate cinematographer Himman Dhamija, Malaysia setting look
breath taking.
I like most beaches scenes which occupy special place where the
romance between Arjun and Jacqueline and Ranbir – Jacqueline blooms.
I want to
say that Roy is extremely slow and it demands your patience and devotion. There
are some moments which bring a boring and other thing. It’s really hard to
understand the two parallel stories of Roy and Kabir conjoining together.
Theritual
view of communicationis a
communications theory proposed byJames
W. Carey, wherein communication–the construction of a symbolic
reality–represents, maintains, adapts, and shares the beliefs of a society in
time. In short, the ritual view conceives communication as a process that
enables and enacts societal transformation.
Carey defines the ritual view
particularly in terms of sharing, participation, association, and fellowship.In addition, Carey acknowledges that,
commonness, communion, and community, naturally correspond with the ritual view.
In a similar way, the term "ritual" holds religious connotations. For
Carey, this connection to religion helps to emphasize the concept of shared
beliefs and ceremony that are fundamental to the ritual view.
In contrast to the ritual view, James
W. Carey presents what he considers the more commonly recognized transmission
view of communication. In the transmission view the dissemination of
information constitutes the primary goal. James W. Carey defines the
transmission view in terms of imparting, sending, transmitting and giving
information to others. In the
transmission view information is disseminated across geography largely for the
purpose of control. To support this idea, James W. Carey refers to the
messaging systems of ancient Egypt wherein, "transportation and
communication were inseparably linked" and served as a method of control.
Where James W. Carey seemingly
presents these two views as oppositional, he acknowledges that thedichotomyis false. He states, "neither of
these counterpoised views of communication necessarily denies what the other
affirms".Instead, they
offer a nuanced perspective of communication that enables a broader
understanding of human interaction.
"The ritual view of
communication is a representation of shared beliefs within a
community." - James Carey (1992).
Examples of ritual communication
are performances, dramas, and religious rites.
Speed and amount of information
are not as important as in the transmission mode of transportation.
Nothing new is necessarily
learned, emphasis is on the connection with the community.
In Ritual Communication (1998),
Eric W. Rothenbuhler states that "ritual is communication without
information."
David Gunkel, in Hacking
Cyberspace (2001) states that ritual communication is an
intentionally redundant activity. The reason for the communication is to
establish and maintain common tenets of an organization or a society.
This is my
interpretation on the novel ‘The Sense of an Ending’ by Julian Barnes. As we
know that the novel is very short and it reveals very hard struggle in
designing. The book is written in two parts. The narrator of the book is Tony.
The novel ‘The sense of an Ending’ is of course called our sense of
understanding end. When you read last pages where Julian Barns reveals the
secret of Adrian’s suicide- why he commits the suicide?
After reading this
novel we can say that the novel deals with the heavy unreliability in narration
and faulty nature of memory. I think Life of Pie is the best example of
unreliability of narrative style. The novel appears in two chronicle parts, if
we talk about the first part its Tony’s schooling where he met Adrian and Veronica,
and second part is concerned with changing narratives that merge back and forth
to the present and the past.
When
Adrian informs Veronica that her mother has left 500 dollars for him, Veronica
simply calls that money Blood money. So here we can say that their relationship
damaged young Adrian’s life so it is called blood money. I believe that one
reason of Tony’s suicide can be the last letter by Tom Webster to him in which
frustrated Tony cursed Adrian and Veronica as Veronica left her and Adrian started
dating his own girlfriend, because of that curse he might have felt guilty and
commits suicide. In that case we can say it as” Murder”
b =
s – v x/+ a1 S (Sarah), V (Veronica), a1 (Adrian), b (baby) Sarah who has not good relationship and bonding
with her own daughter leads her to have healthy and more obsessive relation
with Adrian. And this relationship leads to the birth of Baby.
a2 + v + a1 X s = b? a2 (Anthony Webster), V (Veronica), S (Sarah), b
(Baby) Anthony Webster who has a manful relation leads
Veronica to break up with him and to date his friend Adrian.
In
the novel it is clear that Adrian was very close to Sarah. We can say that on
the basis of what she says about herself that Adrian was happy with Sarah, as
at that time she was with him. We can say that Sarah has Adrian’s diary due to
their relationship. We find that in the novel until Sarah’s death diary was in
her ownership and in her will she agrees to give the diary to Tony.
We
know that in the novel writer doesn’t tell everything in easy way so sometimes we can’t understand what
he actually wants to say to his readers. So it’s possible that Adrian felt guilty
of his seen and maybe he went mad because of his guilt. Guilt may be one of the reasons that he was
hiding his identity. May be he was more guilty for making his girlfriend
pregnant.
If
we talk about Jr.Adrian who is suffering from stress as Sarah and Adrian’s son
then Veronica and Jr. Adrian are their siblings. So he can be considered as
step- father of Veronica.
I
think Veronica is the most horrible among the other characters. Because when
she was alone nobody shared problems and secrets with her. We can say that
because she had no good relation with her mother and her family members. If we
talk about Adrian Finn’s character then we can say that he was a genius and as
a person he was intellectual. His thinking process was in philosophical way.
And we know that intellectual people did suicide including writers,
politicians, and scientists.
Yes
of course narrator is unreliable because he himself goes on telling his own
story. The first thing is whatever he said is only his point of view and his
way looking towards life. Second thing is we can’t remember all things which
happened in our past so here we can say that memory isn't unreliable or
imperfect.
In
the light of new revelations I read her as sacrificial, trustworthy and
manipulative. Veronica truly loved Tony but Tony didn’t take their relationship
seriously at that time she found that Tony does not understand her and their
relationship. So she breaks their relationship so we can say that her character
was calculative but not selfish. So she is calculative and emotional.
This movie is made on the base on the novel One night @ the call center by Chetan Bhagat
Here
I am talking about Chetan Bhagat’s popular novel
One Night @ The Call Center.
First I want to say something about Chetan Bhagat that he is contemporary
writer who has earned a different name and made their distinction in the
literary world. We all know that this novel deals with the problems in a
call center. And related problems such as frustration, emotions and office
politics are dealt in a fascinating manner. The novel revolves around group of
six call center employees working in call center in Delhi. It is filled with a
lot of drama with unpleasant things happening to all of the leading characters.
The story takes a dramatic and decisive turn when they get a phone call from
God.
I agree
that Bhagat has a talent for tapping into the zeitgeist, that he is not much
older than the people he writes about makes him a particularly credible portray
of their world. We can say that because he includes some basic problems of
Indian people. We also find that he mainly focus on nuance and detail. Now a
day’s Indian people forgot about their culture and they blindly follow western
culture. So this type of condition is created by our own people. It’s about
over all problems. The main problem is we only follow their culture and we can
say we behave like so called educated people. But reality is totally opposite
from this because we can behave like them, eat like them, stay like them, do
like them but we can’t think like them. We all say that we live in 21st century
but in reality is that our thinking is narrowing. I mean to say that we think as if we are
living in like in 17th century.
He wrote on the contemporary issues like if we
talk about One Night @ The Call Center we find BPO-Call Center- Globalization,
Anti-American, Nationalism. In his recent novel Half Girlfriend we find
importance of English in Indian Society.
We find globalization in this novel through the
title itself CALL CENTER because it also represents that now world has become
smaller one. We can connect with each other with the electric devices. It is
true that we all loss our connectivity with ourselves. So we face different
types of problems which writer shows in
his novel.
He also makes interesting use of prologue and
epilogue. It also connects with reader through epilogue. The Aristotelian
unities of time, place and action are also taken care of in plot
construction. We can connect with this novel with the movie
Life of Pie. In the movie we find that Pie’s mother is religious person and we
find that his father believe in reality and thinking about the reality of life.
In the novel all characters believe in modernity and when they face difficult
situation they remember the God. So we accept that when we are put in difficult
situation we are helped by God in one or another way. So we can’t deny God’s
presence.
First I would like to talk about the first
question and then about all the questions. In the first answer I want to say something
about ‘Stream of Consciousness’ technique means we can say that its complex
narrative technique. This technique is used by modernist writers. Here we can
say that Virginia Woolf makes some complex senses
with her writing. And we find
in novel that human relationship is complex in day to day life in Mr. and Mrs.
Ramsay’s characters. Writing style also
plays an important role in any work of art. She presents this very well in her
writing.
I think this novel is more the critique then the
tribute of Mrs. Ramsay. Here we find juxtaposition in characters. We know that
Woolf try to pilfer away from the Victorian Age belief that “Women can’t write
or paint”. In the novel we find one male character who says like this. Here
Woolf proves through a character Lily Briscoe who was a young, single painter.
She begins a portrait of Mrs. Ramsay at the beginning of the novel but has
trouble in finishing it. But at the end of the novel she completes her
painting.
Lighthouse is a symbol of strength. So here we
find two characters which are related with this symbol like Lily and writer
herself. And I think in this lighthouse we find two major characters means
characters which are very much connected with this novel and we also say that
writer portraits herself in the novel. In the novel we find that Lily is also
painter. Lily’s character is similar to Virginia Woolf’s sister.
In this novel we find one myth which is related
with Oedipus complex. This complex is found in James character who was a
youngest son of the Ramsay’. He loves his mother deeply and feels a murderous
antipathy toward his father with whom he must compete for Mrs. Ramsay’s love
and affection.
As I understand Kunstlerroman novel means ‘novel
about growth of an artist’. The Lighthouse is a kunstlerroman novel because
here we find two artists growth. In the beginning of the novel we see that Lily
started her painting. In the middle of the novel we find that she left her
painting and in the end of the novel we find that she completes her novel. Thus
here we find that artist’s growth in mind means throughout the time till the
end the thinking process continues in her mind.
In the novel we find that James’ desire to go to
the lighthouse but till the end he could not do so. And here I agree with it
that this novel is more poignant than movie because when we read something that
time we imagine so many things with various points of view and in a different
way. And we are put in one side and thinking more about our imagination and our
feelings, emotion means we realize more and more about novel. The main thing is
we can take a pause and in the movie we also take a pause but that’s not getting
very interesting. Means whenever we watch movie we are not more connected
through our imagination. And second thing is when we watched something that
time we can’t imagine so that time our imagination power is also lost.
So this is my vision about all the answer and
the novel To the Lighthouse.
I watch this movie and I think movie is very related to the novel. I know that some things are not include in the movie because if we try to directed to do this that movie will be so boring. I like Oliver's character in movie he played his roll very well.
In the movie we can see the life of poor people and the life and the workhouse of orphan child. I think with the help of the movie we can understand very easily to the Victorian Age. Beginning of the movie start with rain and thunder so it also represented something going to be wrong in the protagonist of the novel and movie character.
And end of the movie we can find that after all struggle Oliver come out of all this situation and he live very well his life in his future.
Here I am giving my
interpretation about the play ‘The Birthday Party’. It is very true that while
adapting any writing as movie elision is necessary. Here we can take one
example that Salman Rushdie says in Attenborough’s Gandhi’ and other example is
Twilight movie which was made on Stefani Mayer’s Twilight novel. Here I would
like to say that I have not read whole novel but I have seen each part of this
novel in film version. But I want to say that I am reading this novel in my
leisure time. We all know that Lulu is not a major character in the play. In
the play I can’t find that Lulu’s character is necessary in the play. In the
play we saw that Stanly was trying to seduce her means here we can say that in
the modern age woman also suffers from sexual harassment and some other things.
We find that in the play Pinter sketches her character in dumbness and we can
say that here Lulu’s character represents those women who can’t do any
intellectual work. Yes it is true that when we watched the movie we feel bore
and thoughtless. We find some meaningless activities in the movie. We find some
famous scenes in the interrogation for several reasons. What we find most
protuberant is Pinter’s use of language and overlapping dialogue. Yes, of
course, at some level movie is giving the effect of menace but reading and watching
both are different activities. I think that reading is more effective activity
than watching movie. While we read interrogation scene McCann and Goldberg
force Stanley to sit down and they asked questions. And readers have no idea
about the situations. Movie is faithful to the original play in my point of
view. There is no need of any major change but I want to change Lulu’s
character means give some more dialogue to this character in the play.
Here, I submit my
answer sheet about the movie screening “Waiting for Godot”
In the first answer I found that in the first act
tree doesn't have any leaf means there is no hope that today Godot will be
come. Here we also say that in the first act we found that barren tree and the
second act we found that sprouted tree. In the end of the play we found nothing
happening so we can also say that the play is endless play. But
Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot with the hope that today Godot will
come. In the second act we found that tree has some leaves means there is hope
that today Godot will definitely come but he can’t come and they are still
waiting for Godot. In the second answer I found the connection between the two
paintings that is in the first picture we find setting of the evening. The
second picture of the setting is morning. May be Beckett got whole idea through
these painting. The play starts with the dialogue “Nothing to be done” means in
the play we find only one situation and that is Vladimir and Estragon are
waiting for Godot so it also indirectly suggests viewer that in all the play
nothing is going to happen in serious way. Yes I agree with this point that the
play was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic we can say that
especially through both the characters Vladimir and Estragon they are waiting
for Godot and Godot does not come still they are waiting without losing their temper and with the positive
attitude that may be tomorrow will come. So here we find that both the
characters are positive and pessimistic. And yes of course we are killing
our body but we can’t kill our life and soul.
I don’t think that any slave is like Lucky because he
behaves very slavishly in the play. He knows that his master was blind
and he constantly behaves like this so we find only this type of slave in play
and novel. But in reality we can’t find this type of slave. I think Godot is an
object of desire. Yes I am agree with this point that the subject of the play
is not Godot but ‘Waiting’ because we found that in whole play that both of the characters were waiting
for someone but nobody comes in the end
of the play. So we can say that the subject of the play is not Godot but
waiting. Pozzo – Lucky episode in both is the act I like most in the play. I
feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in
the irrational and indifferent Universe during screening of the movie. When
Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot and in the end of the play we can’t
got any result. When they were passing their time through conversation and some
meaningless activities, that time I feel existential crisis or meaninglessness
of human existence.
So this is my point of view of this pay and I
wrote whatever I understand after watching this play.
Robert
Scholes's definition of "fabulation" and "structural
fabulation" is given below. Some definitions of sub-types of science
fiction are included, too; for example see David Ketterer's definition of
"philosophically oriented science fiction". In addition, some
definitions are included that define, for example, a science fiction story,
rather than science fiction itself, since these also illuminate an underlying
definition of science fiction.
Beginning is very good and interesting but
the end of the movie is tragic end. In movie director changed some scenes. Kenneth
Branagh show all the characters very well represented. In movie he made some
changes. In movie Victor's friend alive and in the novel he was killed by
Monster. Yes, the movie helps us to understand narrative structure of the
novel. Yes, I think the movie is helpful to understand the viewpoints of
different characters.
Yes, I think the director is
faithful to the novel. Because he does not change any major scenes in his
movie. I think about Victor's acceptance of Elizabeth and rejection of the
monster because Victor loves her very much so he would accept her in any form
if she is monster or human being. We enjoy this movie very well. It's my point
of view about the movie and movie's director.
About movie screening of Hamlet, I am giving my answers of post view task.
In the movie Kenneth Branagh tries to include real play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. In the original play some scenes are not shown in the play. Kenneth Branagh includes some extra scenes which are not found in the original play by Shakespeare. In the play Shakespeare has not shown death, love, and quarrel scenes beautifully. In the Kenneth Branagh’s movie death, love, quarrel scenes are shown beautifully. I think play and movie both are similar.
Yes, after watching the movie our perception about play, characters or situations changes. Before watching movie we think that in the movie Hamlet is good person. When we read the original play we imagine the whole play. We imagine all the sequences of the play. We create characters or situations of the play through our own imagination.
Yes I feel ‘aesthetic delight’ watching the movie. When I saw the end of the movie Hamlet killing his uncle and he taking revenge. I know that in the end of the movie Hamlet also died but I got satisfaction that he fulfilled his promise.
Yes I feel catharsis while watching movie. It happen when Polonius read the letter by Ophelia. She doesn’t want to read letter but her father forcefully made her read the letter. When Ophelia goes completely mad and sing a song with his brother. His brother wants to talk with her but she only sings a song.
Yes of course movie helps to better understating of the play because if we read play, story etc. we create our imagination and believe that we understand it. When we see movie, we understand the play easily. I think watching any other movie or TV show destroy our imagination power because in the movie or T.V. show they are readily presented and we can’t imagine on our own.
Yes I think one particular scene in the movie that was when the movie is beginning ghost scene and the end of the movie Hamlet‘s broken statue scene are some scenes in the movie that I will cherish lifetime.
If I am director of the movie first of all I will make a movie within limited time. I make a movie only of 3 hours. Kenneth Branagh’s movie was very long. In the movie I would remove talkative part. I will include main conversation between characters. Thank you.
Here I am giving to my reply about the
worksheet of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. First I give the answer about
narration and central theme. So here I give the answer about what is thriller
and suspense thriller and about conspiracy theory. I took from this answer on
Wikipedia website.
Thrilleris a genre ofliterature, film,
and television programming that usessuspense, tension, andexcitementas its main elements. Thrillers heavily stimulate the
viewer'smoods, giving them a high level ofanticipation, ultra-heightened expectation,uncertainty,surprise,
anxietyandterror.
Films of this genre tend to beadrenaline-rushing, gritty,rousingandfast-paced.
A thriller provides the sudden rush of emotions, excitement, and
exhilaration that drive thenarrative, sometimes subtly with peaks and lulls, sometimes at a
constant, breakneck pace. It keeps the audience on the "edge of their
seats", akin to a sensation of hanging from a cliff, as the plot builds
towards aclimax.Literary
devicessuch asred
herrings,plot
twists, andcliffhangersare used extensively. A thriller is usually a
villain-driven plot, whereby he or she presents obstacles that theprotagonistmust overcome.
Aconspiracy theoryis an explanatory proposition that
accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or
covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or
harmful event or situation.
Theconspiracy thriller(orparanoid thriller) is a subgenre ofthriller
fiction. The protagonists of conspiracy thrillers
are often journalists or amateur investigators who find them (often
inadvertently) pulling on a small thread which unravels a vast conspiracy that
ultimately goes "all the way to the top."The complexities of historical fact
are recast as amorality
playin which bad people cause bad events, and good people
identify and defeat them. Conspiracies are often played out as
"man-in-peril" (or "woman-in-peril")stories, or yieldquestnarratives similar to those found inwhodunitsanddetective
stories.
The Da Vinci Code is highly controversial work
of art and we all know that it has raised some questions regarding Christian
religion. We know that ‘Holy Grail’ is a myth but here some questions arise in
my mind that if Holy Grail is myth or interpretation than why people take more interest
in this myth. We are not sure that in reality Holy Grail is existing or not?
Why people want to search Holy Grail? In the movie why Teabing said that if
Holy Grail is found then women can be relived from all the disasters? If we
look in the history than we find that Jesus was a son of God means he has some
supernatural powers. So people believe that he had been God. But we don’t find
that Mary Magdalene had any supernatural power. So in movie we find that many women
are killed. This novel is about Jesus Christ and his divinity and about Mary
Magdalene. We know that if any person talk against or any truth about religion
than so called defenders of religion raise
objections. Same thing happen with Dan brown. Sometimes I feel that writers are
not free to write about whatever they think and feel in our country. Are they
more free and safe in other countries?
We find
that other countries are deep thinking about their religion or myth means they are
deconstructing their rituals and myths. We find this only in foreign countries
but I never found in our country people who raise some questions about religion
because of fear they can’t do that otherwise they will be punished by God. They
know that if they do that then religion or religious people will kill them.
Just because of FEAR. We find this same thing in recent movie PK. Whenever we talk about religion than we put
our self in anger.
The Da Vinci Code is a suspense thriller novel
and movie also. I have not read original yet. But I I watched this movie and I
found that each and every moment we find some suspense and action means it’s
create more curiosity to know about what is the next scene.
The director of the movie Ron Howard has remained
faithful to the novel. He also successfully creates inquisitiveness in the
viewers and he is successful to create confusion and some doubts in our mind.
It is not understood to ordinary man by watching it only one time and easily to
get everything whatever director or writer says to his viewers or readers. Even
I don’t understand some parts of the movie, I watched this movie twice or more
time to understand.
In this novel Brown has shown Mary Magdalene as
symbol of the lost goddess. In Christian religion she is known as prostitute.
But here in this novel or movie writer changes her character. Means in the
novel writer says that she is not only a disciple of Jesus but his wife. Church
has spread some buzz about Mary Magdalene. Pagan religion emphasized the
equality of both and sometimes gives importance to feminine leadership. We can
also say that in Christian religion female figure are more important than male
figure because if we glance on history that Mary Magdalene also gave birth to a
baby girl child. And her name was Sara.
We find that in novel also one of the protagonists of this novel is also female
character who was Sophie Neveu. And believe that she is also one who carries
the Jesus blood line. Here one question arises that why writer uses the female
character to heir and protagonist also? The hidden docket behind this that
writer has shown some negative sense about Mary Magdalene.
About female sacredness if we look in to past
we found that people believe that women are not impure and people also praised
and respect women have power to give new life and they have power to continue
the generation or to give birth to new life and we know that men can’t do that.
This novel makes the readers confuse that how far he remain faithful to female
sacredness in the novel because of some feminine strong evidence about Mary’s
life. We know that now a days many highly religious figures say that women are
impure. So here is one question to them
that from where have they come to this earth? By some supernatural power or by some other way? If I am not wrong all
Godly figures have taken birth. If we
talk about our religion than God Krishna, Ram etc have come to this earth by
birth. And they say that women are impure because of some biological organs
differences. So no one can say that women are impure and if they say like this they are foolish people. Even God made humans
so both are same without any one we can’t maintain our cyclical change. If we
deny that, this is against nature we can say like this. In male dominated
society female character is marginalized and only men can carry the blood line.
In the movie we found Sophie
thought like both men and women’s so we can call that she has multiple
personalities. Sophie is French police, cryptologist and calamity is that she
could not read the hidden messages which her grandfather left for her. Robert Langdon helped her to find Sophie’s background and solve the puzzle. We
know that Robert Langdon was scholar of symbologist.
I don’t
think that this novel is Anti Christian. Dan Brown reveals the controversial
truth or we can say that Jesus Christ was not virgin and he had child. He
revealed this thing which is not only based on myth or interpretation but he
has also some strong evidences. He reveled these secrets which are hidden by
Opus Die. Old Christianity believed in Goddess worshiping and normally that
time is night time so some are said that they do evil worship. New religion do
not believe that worshiping Goddess.
We know that in the novel we find two characters
Robert Langdon and Leigh Teabing who are symbologist and scholars. We know that
symbols have many and different meanings. Holy Grail is first time presented by
Brown. It means not only cup of Christ but it is also Sarcophagus of Mary
Magdalene. Holy Grail is just not a thing that can be seen, it is just a hope that
connect religion.
I have studied Paradise Lost and The Da Vinci
Code. I say that narrative structure seems to be faithful. In Paradise Lost
Milton wrote on Eve and Adam. Eve is responsible for fall of Adam. Here Brown
through his fictional novel raised all historical issues and references have given
strong evidence.
If we compare Sophie’s character with other
female literary figures of Movie like Hamlet, The Scarlet Letter, then we can
say that its some issues are against
women. But I think all characters are right at to their own situation or place
and they are all equally powerful.
As you discussed in the class whatever we know
we understand or identify is our knowledge So they are things that are not known
and which we can never know. One philosopher gave this proposition rather tries
to give mathematical proposition that what human can know? What human never
cannot know those thing omniscient can know something. Identifying what is
knowable that and identifying acknowledge of relationship of the knower and
known, who is like to know something and what we are trying to know what is the
relationship between these two necessary things. This is the procedure of
ability to know. This you discussed in the class and gave one example that if a
person of any religion gives his view on other religion he keeps his religion
in his mind. So religion makes person think in only one way. If any person
claims that he or she knows everything that’s not true that they know everything.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)