અરણ્યરુદન/અર્પણ - Revision history

MeghaBhavsar at 08:04, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T08:04:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:04, 23 September 2021
Line 18:		Line 18:
	{{HeaderNav		{{HeaderNav
	\|previous = [[અરણ્યરુદન/અરણ્યરુદન\|અરણ્યરુદન]]		\|previous = [[અરણ્યરુદન/અરણ્યરુદન\|અરણ્યરુદન]]
			\|next = [[અરણ્યરુદન/વિવેચન વિશે\|વિવેચન વિશે]]
	}}		}}

MeghaBhavsar at 09:07, 6 September 2021

2021-09-06T09:07:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:07, 6 September 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:
	'''– Malcolm Bradbury'''		'''– Malcolm Bradbury'''
	{{Poem2Close}}		{{Poem2Close}}


			{{HeaderNav
			\|previous = [[અરણ્યરુદન/અરણ્યરુદન\|અરણ્યરુદન]]
			}}

MeghaBhavsar at 10:32, 28 June 2021

2021-06-28T10:32:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 28 June 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Center~~\|~~'''~~અર્પણ~~'''~~}}		{{SetTitle}}
	~~----~~
			{{Heading\|અર્પણ\| સુરેશ જોષી}}
	{{Poem2Open}}		{{Poem2Open}}
	{{Center\|ઉમાશંકરને}}		{{Center\|ઉમાશંકરને}}

MeghaBhavsar: MeghaBhavsar moved page અરણ્યરુદન – સુરેશ હ. જોષી/અર્પણ to અરણ્યરુદન/અર્પણ

2021-06-28T09:38:40Z

MeghaBhavsar moved page અરણ્યરુદન/અર્પણ to અરણ્યરુદન/અર્પણ

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:38, 28 June 2021
(No difference)

MeghaBhavsar: Created page with "{{Center|'''અર્પણ'''}} ---- {{Poem2Open}} {{Center|ઉમાશંકરને}} {{Center|'''But a tortoise shaken by asthma'''}} {{Center|'''goes on protesting'''}}..."

2021-06-25T09:43:26Z

Created page with "{{Center|'''અર્પણ'''}} ---- {{Poem2Open}} {{Center|ઉમાશંકરને}} {{Center|'''But a tortoise shaken by asthma'''}} {{Center|'''goes on protesting'''}}..."

New page

{{Center|'''અર્પણ'''}}
----
{{Poem2Open}}
{{Center|ઉમાશંકરને}}
{{Center|'''But a tortoise shaken by asthma'''}}
{{Center|'''goes on protesting'''}}
The democratization of literature and society makes the elitist terms of Arnold’s criticism impossible. The mediating society which provides the norms for judging and evaluating literature has gone and consequently each judicial critic can speak only for himself.

Once the critic is released from the preconceptions of a moral and evaluating approach he is obliged to preserve a tolerance for every variety of poetic expression and a respect for every poet’s individuality. Such a phrase as ‘of course. I don’t like this kind of poetry’ can never be uttered by a serious critic. The critic’s obligation is to see literature as a body of knowledge which can be studied systematically and as a critic he must free himself from all merely personal responses.

The reason for this is clear. Arnold’s kind of arbritrative disinterestedness has failed, and we must find a higher disinterestedness transcending the limits of any concerned segments of society. One needs to stand outside of concern altogether, committed only to the truth of correspondence and literature.

'''– Malcolm Bradbury'''
{{Poem2Close}}