THE ART OF WRITING

Lab activity

"The Golden Mean of Exam Writing: How Much is Enough?"

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir.

This vedio about the ideal length of answers in descriptive essay-type examinations in English literature. The video aims to quantify the relationship between marks, answer length, and time duration for handwritten answers, moving beyond the common but abstract advice that "quality matters more than quantity". The Challenge of Quantifying Answer Length Teachers worldwide are troubled by the question of how much students are supposed to write, as clear answers are difficult to provide. While there's a consensus that quality is paramount, and mark schemes typically focus on assessing skills (e.g., identifying key features, effective communication) rather than word count, students still seek concrete guidance on length. Quantifying quality remains an abstract and difficult task.

 Question A (for 10 marks): 

Write your critical comment on the views of F. R. Leavis and J. B. Priestley on ‘Hard Times’. With whom do you agree? Why?

Introduction

Charles Dickens’s Hard Times has attracted varied critical responses over the decades. Among the most notable are those by F. R. Leavis, a prominent literary critic of the 20th century, and J. B. Priestley, a novelist, playwright, and social commentator. Their differing interpretations reflect contrasting understandings of the novel's artistic value and social critique.

F. R. Leavis’s View

F. R. Leavis, in his influential work The Great Tradition, praises Hard Times as the only Dickens novel that could be considered a "mature work of art." He believes it stands apart from Dickens’s other novels because of its unity of theme and structure. Leavis highlights the novel’s critique of utilitarianism and industrial society, particularly through the character of Mr. Gradgrind, who represents a mechanical and fact-based worldview.

Leavis also sees the novel as a moral fable, where Dickens moves away from mere sentimentality and comedy, and towards a serious exploration of social and ethical concerns. For Leavis, Hard Times is Dickens’s artistic triumph because it fuses moral intention with narrative economy.

J. B. Priestley’s View

In contrast, J. B. Priestley offers a less favorable opinion. He criticizes the novel for being overly didactic and structurally weak, claiming that it sacrifices artistic subtlety for a blunt social message. According to Priestley, Dickens’s attack on the industrial system lacks nuance, and his characters often descend into caricature—particularly Mr. Bounderby and Gradgrind.

Priestley also argues that the novel’s moral outrage overshadows character development and narrative complexity, making it less effective as a work of fiction. While he acknowledges Dickens’s good intentions, he feels that Hard Times is more of a propaganda piece than a literary masterpiece.

Critical Comment and Personal Position

Both critics raise valid points. Leavis’s appreciation for the novel’s thematic unity and moral depth is compelling, especially considering Dickens’s deliberate focus on the dehumanizing effects of industrial capitalism. However, Priestley’s concerns about over-simplification and caricature also hold weight.

That said, I find Leavis’s view more convincing, primarily because Hard Times remains relevant as a social critique. Dickens’s exaggerated characters are not flaws but rather deliberate tools used to satirize Victorian ideologies such as utilitarianism, capitalism, and rigid education systems. The novel’s brevity, unlike Dickens's typically sprawling narratives, adds to its intensity and purpose, supporting Leavis’s claim of narrative focus.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both Leavis and Priestley provide thought-provoking analyses, F. R. Leavis’s positive appraisal of Hard Times better appreciates the novel’s artistic seriousness and moral clarity. The book succeeds not despite its strong message, but because of its fierce commitment to social justice, making it a powerful literary and political statement.

Question B (for 5 marks): 

Write your critical comment on the views of F. R. Leavis and J. B. Priestley on ‘Hard Times’. With whom do you agree? Why?

Introduction

Charles Dickens’s Hard Times has been the subject of varied critical interpretations. Two influential critics, F. R. Leavis and J. B. Priestley, offer contrasting views on the novel. Leavis sees it as a mature and unified work, while Priestley is more critical, finding the novel overly didactic and structurally weak.

F. R. Leavis's View

Leavis praises Hard Times as the most artistically successful of Dickens’s novels. He emphasizes its moral focus and its critique of industrial society through characters like Mr. Gradgrind. Leavis believes the novel's structural unity and serious tone set it apart from Dickens’s other works. For him, the novel’s clarity of purpose makes it a great work of art.

J. B. Priestley's View

In contrast, Priestley finds Hard Times too blunt in its social critique. He criticizes its didacticism and argues that it lacks the subtlety and character development found in Dickens’s other novels. For Priestley, the characters are more like stereotypes used to convey a message rather than fully realized individuals, which weakens the novel’s literary quality.

Critical Comment

While Priestley raises valid concerns about the simplification of characters for moral purposes, I align more with Leavis’s perspective. The novel’s clear social critique and moral focus are not weaknesses but strengths. Dickens uses exaggerated characters to satirize Victorian ideologies, making the novel’s messages both accessible and effective.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both critics offer valuable insights, I agree with Leavis’s view that Hard Times is a mature and focused work. Its thematic unity and moral urgency contribute to its lasting significance as a critical piece of social commentary.

reference:

https://youtu.be/9qAu7ulqGdo?si=1XVHBLM0bOTZ8Nxr