HOW MUCH LAND DOES A MAN NEED

summary of--------In the short story "How Much Land Does A Man Need" by Leo Tolstoy, Pahom is a peasant living on a small plot of land. When his wife brags that a peasant's life is safer than having money, because with money comes temptation, Pahom agrees, adding that he would not be "afraid of the devil himself" if he only had more land. He buys more land, but is unhappy, for no matter how much more land he gets, he wants more. He becomes greedier and greedier until he loses control of his life and, in the end, loses everything. This story shows us that even if we have enough to get by, the prospect of becoming wealthier is so alluring it can cause us to risk all the good things we already have. At the start, Pahom is a content, hardworking men. Unfortunately, he makes the mistake of thinking that more land would make his life better. Pahom says to himself "our only trouble is that we haven't land enough. If I had plenty of land, I shouldn't fear the devil himself"! When an opportunity arises for Pahom to acquire more land, he jumps at the chance, convinced that more would make him happy. He paid off his debts and had plenty of fertile land to grow his crops and raise his cattle, but he was only satisfied for a short while. "Pahom was wellcontented and everything would have been right if the neighbouring peasants would only not have trespassed on his cornfields and meadows", so even when he had the extra land he wanted. His life was far from perfect. Disputes with his neighbours and court battles cause Pahom to be disliked by the Commune, so even though he had more land, his position in the town was worse than ever. Pahom's life may have been improved by owning more land, but human nature prompted him to continue to be greedy, wanting even more than he already had. One day, Pahom hears word of a place where free land was given to any man who joins the Commune. Immediately the many acres of land that he does own seem unbearable and barren compared to the promise of better land. He

asks himself, "Why should I suffer in this narrow hole, if one can live so well elsewhere"? so, although he has plenty of good land and a good life, Pahom sells everything he owns to pursue what he thinks will complete his idea of a happy life. With the new land, Pahom was content, but soon he grew accustomed to it and began to want more once again. After renting extra land, Pahom decided it would be an even better idea if he actually owned all his land for he believed he "should be independent, and there would not be any unpleasantness". He planned to buy more land, but along cam an opportunity that he would not let pass by. A tradesman passing through told Pahom of lush land, sold for nearly no money, so Pahom decided that land would be a better deal. "If I take it out there, I can get more than ten times as much for the money" he figured, so he abandoned everything he had worked so hard for and when to check out the land. Just as the tradesman had promised, the land was lush and fertile and the owners promised to give Pahom all the land he could walk around in a day for a very cheap price. Pahom walked the entire day, but greed overtook him and he bit off more

than he could chew. Exhausted, he tried to make it back to the designated meeting place before the day was over, but his body was too tired. Defeated, he made one last effort, "there is plenty of land, but will God let me live on it" he wondered. This journey was to no avail-he had taken too much, and died in the process. Through the story we are shown that human nature pushes us to want more and more. We are never content with our lives, no matter how well off we may be, and , while trying to better out standard of living, we put ourselves in danger of ending up with nothing.

Shooting an Elephant

Summary of shooting an elephant George Orwell was then the sub-divisional police officer of the town of Moulmein in Burma. The Burmese people had a lot of anti-European feelings. They did not do anything in an organized purposeful way like a revolt or riot to express their hatred. But they did petty things like spitting betel juice over the dress of European women or jeering at Europeans at a safe distance. They hated Orwell a little more as he was a police officer, an agent of the oppressors. If a Burmese player did a foul against him in the football field, the Burmese referee ignored it and the crowd of spectators laughed in glee. The Buddhist priest jeered at him as at every other European. Orwell found their behaviours intolerable and he hated them for personal reasons. On the other hand, Orwell had a lot of sympathy for the oppressed people. Theoretically, he regarded Imperialism as evil. As a police officer, he had seen the tyranny and oppression of the British Empire in practice. So he was all against the British Empire and he was on the side of the Burmese. Thus, Orwell was in a mental conflict. He was an officer of the Empire which he hated. He had to serve the Empire and be an agent of oppression. On the other hand, he hated the Burmese for personal reasons, though he was on their side and he had sympathy. So he hated his job and thought of giving it up. While in Moulmein once, he had to shoot an elephant needlessly. It was an incident, which showed the hollowness of the British Empire, and it also showed how the British people, who seemed to be so powerful, were actually powerless puppets. The elephant which was in must had ravaged a bazaar, destroyed a hut, eaten up the fruits of a fruit stall and killed a cow. Orwell went out with his .44 Winchester Rifle to frighten the elephant away with the sound of the gun. The Burmese could not give him any definite information about the whereabouts of the elephant. At last he heard a shout from a lane of thatched huts. He went there and saw that the elephant had killed a Dravidian coolie. He thought that the elephant might have gone mad or must. So he asked an orderly to fetch an elephant rifle. He wanted the elephant rifle only for self defense if necessary. He had not yet decided to shoot the elephant. He only wanted to examine it, which was grazing in the nearby paddy field. The elephant was there eating bunches of grass peacefully. Orwell felt that the must was passing off and it would not do harm anymore. So it was not necessary to shoot it. But there were the crowds of more than two thousand people. They wanted him to kill the elephant. The natives of the east thought that a sahib or a European must be resolute and should act resolutely without fear. To keep up the image that the natives had of a sahib, the sahib had to do what the natives expected him to do. Thus the European became a puppet, driven by the will of the native people. So did Orwell act. If he did not shoot the elephant, the Burmese

people would think that he was frightened. They would laugh at him. To avoid being laughed at, he decided to shoot the elephant. He shot the elephant. Unable to tolerate the agony of the elephant, he shot it thrice with his elephant rifle and many times with his .44 rifle. he But the elephant took about half an hour to die. Opinions were divided on his shooting of the elephant. The owner was angry but to no avail. The older Europeans thought that he had done the right thing. The younger men thought that it was wrong to shoot a valuable elephant for killing a coolie. But none could understand the real reason why he had shot the elephant.

The Road Not Taken By Robert Frost With Stanza Summaries and Endnotes 1 Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveller, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth;1 Summary, Stanza 1 On the road of life, the speaker arrives at a point where he must decide which of two equally appealing (or equally intimidating) choices is the better one. He examines one choice as best he can, but the future prevents him from seeing where it leads.

2 Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim,2 Because it was grassy and wanted wear;3 Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same,

Summary, Stanza 2 The speaker selects the road that appears at first glance to be less worn and therefore less traveled. This selection suggests that he has an independent spirit and does not wish to follow the crowd. After a moment, he concludes that both roads are about equally worn.

3 And both that morning equally lay, In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.

Summary, Stanza 3 Leaves cover both roads equally. No one on this morning has yet taken either road, for the leaves lie undisturbed. The speaker remains committed to his decision to take the road he had previously selected, saying that he will save the other road for another day. He observes, however, that he probably will never pass this way again and thus will never have an opportunity to take the other road.

4 I shall be telling this with a sigh4 Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Summary, Stanza 4 In years to come, the speaker says, he will be telling others about the choice he made. While doing so, he will sigh either with relief that he made the right choice or with regret that he made the wrong choice. Whether right or wrong, the choice will have had a significant impact on his life. Notes 1..The road beyond the bend may represent the future or the unknown, neither of which can be perceived. 2..Here, Frost uses personification, saying that the road has a claim. 3..Personification occurs here also if wanted means desired. No personification occurs, however, ifwanted means lacked. 4..Sigh can indicate relief or happiness, or it can indicate regret or sorrow. The interpretation of its meaning is up to the reader.

-To be of use (by marge piercy) Summary

The poet has a high regard for people who throw themselves with enthusiasm into any kind of work they do. She says such people are like seals. The speaker uses this metaphor to illustrate the notion that people she loves work with such control that they seem to be meant to do their jobs. She likes people who r not lazy and do not delay or procrastinate the completion of duties. They are not afraid of work, rather they tackle their jobs well. Marge piercy seems very enthusiastic about physical labour. Tells us that even though work is often dirty and thankless people ought to do it properly anyway. Satisfaction and self-fulfilment can be attained by using ones skill to serve a specific function in life.

CONCLUDING LINESAccording to the poet, unproductive existence is meaningless and has no value.

NIGHT OF THE SCORPION summary Nissim Ezekiel's 'Night of the Scorpion' is the poet's personal account of his memory of his mother being stung by a scorpion when he was a child. He begins by explaining that the scorpion had come in because of heavy rain and had hidden under a sack of rice. Ezekiel uses alliteration to describe the moment of the sting: 'Parting with his poison'. He alludes to evil in the phrase 'diabolic tail', comparing the scorpion to the devil.

The scorpion departed and, on hearing the news of the deadly sting, villagers came to the house. Ezekiel uses the simile 'like swarms of flies' to describe their number and behaviour. He states that they 'buzzed the name of God' repeatedly, the onomatopoeia enabling us to 'hear' the constant noise they made. The scorpion is again seen as the devil in line ten: 'the Evil One'. We can imagine the fear of the child observing the scene, as the peasants' lanterns created 'giant scorpion shadows' on the walls of his home. Onomatopoeia is used again as the poet says that these people 'clicked their tongues' whilst searching for the scorpion. They believed that whenever the scorpion moved, its poison 'moved in Mother's blood'.

Line eighteen is the first in a fourteen-line section which recounts the words of wisdom voiced by the peasants in the hope that the woman would survive. Five of the lines begin

'May ...' and are clear examples of the religious beliefs held by these villagers. They refer to past and future lives, absolution of sins, the lessening of evil and the hope that the poison will 'purify' the woman's flesh and spirit. Ezekiel describes how they surrounded his mother; he saw 'the peace of understanding' in their facial expressions.

Lines thirty-two and thirty-three form a repetitive pattern in which Ezekiel remembers the arrival of 'More candles, more lanterns, more neighbours, / more insects' as the rain continued to fall. In line thirty-four he makes the first direct reference to his mother's suffering, telling us that she 'twisted through and through' and was groaning in pain. He then turns to the reaction of his father, not a religious man but 'sceptic, rationalist'. On this occasion, however, the man resorted to 'every curse and blessing' accompanied by various herbal concoctions, such was his desperation. Ezekiel describes in detail that his father actually set alight to the toe that had been bitten. It must have had a profound effect on the poet as a child; he describes how 'I watched the flame feeding on my mother', personifying the fire. Ezekiel then watched and listened to a 'holy man' carrying out certain rites to 'tame' the poison. The poison lost its sting the following night.

The first forty-five lines form one continuous stanza relating the event from start to finish. The poem concludes with a short three-line stanza in which Ezekiel recalls his mother's reaction to her frightening and painful experience. She spoke of it only briefly, thanking God and saying how glad she was that the scorpion had chosen to sting her rather than her children. This was the boundless, selfless love of a mother, and these were words which Ezekiel never forgot.

One of the interesting points about the poem is that Ezekiel narrates it from the point of view of a child who was purely an observer, not involved as the adults were in taking any action. This allows him to relate the actions and words of the peasants and his father whilst being detached from them. It is an insight into the behaviour of a small community in India where everyone becomes involved in one family or one mother's suffering, and all gather to witness the event and contribute a prayer. To the child it must have seemed as though there was a huge number of people, and the night must have been interminable. His comparison of the peasants to flies suggests that he would rather they had left the family in peace.

The structure of the poem is very free, with lines of varying lengths and no rhyme scheme. The second stanza that ends the poem attracts attention for its brevity and emphasises the words of the mother and their effect on the son.

and

'Night of the Sorpion' is a poignant poem that evokes the strong hold of superstition within our social psyche. Ezekiel recalls the night when his mother was stung by a scorpion. With the onset of the monsoons, the ten hours of warm and steady rains had compelled the mysterious scorpion to crawl into the house and hid itself beneath a sack of rice in the dark store room. Without any mercy, it raised up its lethal, venomous and diabolic tail and stung Ezekiel's mother in one of her toes while she was busy in the store room unaware. Then it left her helpless in the dark store room and went out into the rain again. Almost all the peasants in the neighbourhood came in with a high spirit of concern. They entered the residence like swarm of flies and chanted loudly, the name of God for more than a hundred times to paralyze the evil sting of the scorpion.They came in with lanterns and candles and created giant shadows of the scorpion on the mud baked walls. They searched for him but he was not found. They clicked their tongues and said that with every movement that the scorpion made, the venom moved in the mother's blood. She laid at the centre of the of the floor of the room with the peasnts surrounding her. Their first chanted prayer was for the scorpin to remain still. Secondly, they chanted that her present suffering decrease the misfortunes of her next birth. Thirdly, that the sum of evil balanced in this unreal world against the sum of good become diminish by her pain. As the mother twisted, rolled around and groaning in pain, more neighbours came in with more lanterns and candles, while the rains show no signs of stopping. Ezekiel's father on the other hand, is a man of science and he tried to create an antidote out of every powder, mixture, herb and hybrid plant. He's not superstitious and tried to treat the sting using a scientific method. He even poured a little paraffin on the bitten toe and lit a match to it. The flame was feeding on the mother's toe and everybody in the room was watching it. The holy man was also performing his rites to tame the poison with the charms of an incantation. It enacted in elaborate detail, how people react under similar circumstances. Finally after twenty hours the venom of the sting lost its power. The mother was overjoyed with a huge sigh of relief. She only thanked God that the scorpion picked on her and spared her children. The reaction of the mother, which stresses her maternal feelings above all ritualistic practices, imbues the poem with a rare warmth.