Wednesday 11 March 2015

Significance of Deathly hallows in Harry Potter

                            


                            Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows



Name – Shital D Italiya
Assignment Paper no – 13 (New Literature)
Topic – Significance of Deathly Hallows 
Roll no – 29
Enrolment no – PG13101012
Submitted to – Smt. S.B. Gardy Department of English
                                    M.K. Bhavnagar University
                                              Bhavnagar


Introduction

“J.K. Rowling is the creator of the Harry Potter fantasy series, one of the most popular book and film franchises in history.”

                 Rowling was born in Yate, United Kingdom in 1965, to Peter and Anne Rowling. Together with her mother, father, and younger sister Dianne, she moved to Winterbourne, Bristol and then to Tutshill near Chepstow. She attended secondary school at Weyden Comprehensive, where she told stories to her fellow students.

              As a single mother living in Edinburgh, Scotland, Rowling became an international literary sensation in 1999, when the first three instalments of her Harry Potter children's book series took over the top three slots of The New York Times best-seller list after achieving similar success in her native United Kingdom. The phenomenal response to Rowling's books culminated in July 2000, when the fourth volume in the series, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, became the fastest-selling book in history.

                The seventh and final book in the series is markedly different from the first six in one specific way. With the exception of some final chapters, Harry is not attending Hogwarts. He has outgrown his role as “student” and instead steps fully into the role of “hero.” The question throughout the entire novel is whether our hero will have to sacrifice everything or not.

             Before we enter in to the Deathly hallow in harry potter we have to understand the general meaning of what is Deathly hallows?


Ø According to urban dictionary meaning

           Deathly Hallows are featured in the seventh instalment of the Harry Potter book series by JK Rowling. They are a trio of objects fabled to have been
Made by Death. Anyone who possess all three hallows is supposed to become the "Master of Death."

Ø The Hallows are:

The Elder Wand: The most powerful wand in the world, nearly unbeatable. The Elder Wand will only be truly powerful if its current owner took it themselves, by force, from the previous owner. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to kill the previous owner to win the wand's allegiance.

The Invisibility Cloak: This hallow has been duplicated and many cloaks now exist, but this one is special. It renders the wearer completely invisible. It is not hampered by spells and will never wear out over time. It also offers protection, which no other invisibility cloaks do.

The Resurrection Stone: A stone that will call the dead back into the world of the living. But they will not be truly like they were; they still belong to the world from which they came. Most who call them back are unsatisfied.

The symbol of the Deathly Hallows is a circle (symbolizing the stone), sliced down the middle with a line (symbolizing the wand), and surrounded by triangle (symbolizing the cloak).

Harry Potter is the only one who is able to unite the hallows because he is the only one worthy. But he drops the stone, and puts away the wand, never to use them again.

"Harry Potter managed to unite all three Deathly Hallows! Now he is the Master of Death."

"I think the most useful of the Deathly Hallows is the Elder Wand."

               Three items in the Harry Potter series: Harry Potter's invisibility cloak (passed on from the original creator), the Elder Wand (also known as the Wand of Destiny), and the Resurrection Stone. Supposedly the possessor of all three becomes master of death.

Lord Voldemort’s sought the Elder Wand, one of the Deathly Hallows, so he could never lose a duel.

Harry Potter slipped the invisibility cloak around him so that none could see him anymore.

Harry Potter turned the Resurrection Stone in his hand three times and then appeared his late parents, his godfather Sirius Black, and his friend/teacher Remus Lupin although they were neither living nor completely ghost.
Ø Deathly Hallows and Christianity

According to Grindelwald's forces and the Nazi Party

              "As a symbol, the Deathly Hallows resembles the swastika. Both were originally positive symbols from a spiritual/mythological background that acquired extremely negative connotations after being adopted by evil political movements."

                          Deathly Hallows symbol isn't even close to a swastika, neither in appearance nor in background. Any resemblance between Grindelwald's philosophies and Nazism is in spite of the symbols. Nazism didn't get started as a fairy tale about conquering death, and nowhere is it stated that the Deathly Hallows were ever "positive symbols" in the way the swastika was (and is). At best you could say that both Nazism and the Deathly Hallows were about power, but that has little to do with the symbols.

             "As objects, the Deathly Hallows resembles the Holy Grail. Both are items which convey supernatural powers upon those who acquire them; Both can only be achieved at the end of a 'Quest;' and both are considered mythological, yet are the basis for a number of mythical and pseudo historical studies."

                   These parallels are less disputable than "Deathly Hallows = Nazism", but they still stink of original research. There are so many artefacts (fictional and nonfictional) that fit these characteristics that might as well compare the Hallows to all of those. The author conveniently glosses over the fact that the Holy Grail is one artefact, not three, and that the stories about it do not resemble that of the Hallows at all (this is all the more obvious because Rowling uses the Philosopher's Stone pretty much as - is).At best one might claim that the Hallows are possibly inspired by the Holy Grail, but that's original research at its finest.

“Symbol holds a status similar to a swastika"

Did Grindelwald truly possess the wand?

                      It's actually not clear from the book whether Grindelwald was a "true" possessor of the wand according to the criteria set out by the books, since he merely stole the wand by stealth and did not defeat its previous owner by force. This would explain why Dumbledore was able to defeat him in a duel, and why, when Voldemort came to interrogate him about the wand, Grindelwald says in the book:

 "So, you have come. I thought you would ... one day. But your journey was pointless. I never had it."

On the other hand, Harry interpreted this as a lie “to stop Voldemort going after the wand" and the ghost of Dumbledore (or whatever that apparition was supposed to be) apparently agreed, saying "perhaps that lie to Voldemort was his attempt to make amends". Also, if Grindelwald wasn't the true possessor of the wand, then I suppose ownership wouldn't have passed to Dumbledore and thence to Malfoy and Harry; It would have still resided with Gregorovitch and thus been taken by Voldemort when he overpowered Gregorovitch.

                 Yet again, even if Grindelwald wasn't truly the owner of the wand, perhaps it had "forgotten" about Gregorovitch by that time and took a liking to Dumbledore because he took the wand by force in a spectacular duel. After all, there is no reason to think that the characters' theories about the rules of wand ownership are intended to be taken as infallible, as the characters themselves indicate that they aren't always sure.

Ø Deeper meaning of Deathly Hallows

                      The noun hallow means “a holy person or saint.” “Hallows” is a word that refers to “the shrines or relics of saints.” The verb “to hallow” means “to make holy, to sanctify, to purify” or “to honour as holy, to regard and treat with reverence or awe” as in the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name…” The October 31st celebration of Halloween is also known as All Hallows Eve, or the Eve of All Saints.

                Then of course there is the Christian mythology of the quest for the Hallows of the Holy Grail in the Arthurian legends. Typically, the Grail Hallows is identified as:

1. The Sword of King David or, (alternately) the Sword that beheaded John Baptist
2. The Dish of the Last Supper
3. The Holy Grail Cup
4. The Spear of Longinus (also referred to as “the Spear of Destiny”)

Ø Triangular Deathly Hallows symbols

             The cup, dish, and the spear are part of a larger collection of objects known as the Arma Christi, or Articles of the Crucifixion of Christ. When the title of the final Harry Potter novel was released, the Grail Hallows and their correspondences with the four suits of the Tarot (swords, disks, cups, and wands), then looked for parallels in Harry’s world. Sword of Gryffindor to play an important role in the final book, and it did. The dish or disk has a Parallel in the Locket of Slithering, and the cup is present as the Cup of Hufflepuff. But what of the spear? Parallel with the four suits of the Tarot, and realized that a wand would be a suitable quest object in this story about wizards. I expected the Spear of Destiny would have a parallel as the Wand of Destiny in the wizarding world.

    The Spear of Destiny and the Holy Grail Cup of Arthurian Legend have their origins in the Crucifixion of Christ. The legend of the Spear of Destiny developed from a passage in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus is found dead on the cross: “Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear and at once blood and water came out.” (John 19:34, NRSV) Tradition derived from the no canonical Gospel of Nicodemus gave this Roman soldier a name: Gaius Cassius Longinus. A sculpture of the legendary saint by the brilliant Italian artist Gian Lorenzo Bernini (15981680) can be seen in Saint Peter’s Basilca in Rome. Longinus is depicted holding the Holy Lanch his Right hand.


 In 326 A.D. St. Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, discovered relics thought to be theArma Christi while on a pilgrimage in Jerusalem. Among the relics were the True Cross of Christ’s crucifixion, the crown of thorns, the pillar at which Christ was scourged, and the Holy Lance. A legend later associated with this Holy Lance claimed that whoever possessed it would be able to conquer the world. A group of knights found a lance believed to be the Lance of Longinus beneath St. Peter’s Cathedral in Antioch during the First Crusade. Possession of the alleged Holy Lance spurred the crusaders on to victory.

ü Hermione discovers the tomb of Harry’s ancestor Ignotus Peverell in Godricʹs Hollow.


               The legend of the “Thirteen Treasures of Britain” also known as the “Thirteen Hallows of Britain” describes an impressive collection of magical objects that would not seem out of place inHarry’s world. The twelfth treasure, for instance, is a magical chessboard with “living” chess pieces, not unlike the Wizard’s Chess game that Ron Weasley is so fond of playing.

                ʺI’ll be a knight, ʺ said Ron.

The thirteenth hallow in this collection is known as “The Mantle of Arthur” with the power to make the wearer invisible. This is very much like the Invisibility Cloak that was given to Harry by Dumbledore during his first Christmas at Hogwarts, the cloak that is the third of the Deathly Hallows.

Harry received the Invisibility Cloak for Christmas during his first year at Hogwarts.

Rather than four Grail Hallows or thirteen Hallows of Britain, Rowling creates a trinity of Deathly Hallows, represented by a vertical line and circle contained within a triangle.

Sign of deathly hallows

            "Witness that knuckleheaded young man at your brother's wedding who attacked me for sporting the symbol of a well-known Dark wizard! Such ignorance. There is nothing Dark about the Hallos at least, not in that crude sense. One simply uses the symbol to reveal oneself to other believers, in the hope that they might help with the Quest."

According to Xenophiles Lovegood

            The Sign of the Deathly Hallows is a triangular mark used as representation of the Deathly Hallows, three legendary objects that allegedly, if united, would make one the "Master of Death". The sign is actually composed of three separate marks that, united, make up the sign. The Elder Wand is represented by the straight vertical line, the Resurrection Stone by the circle surrounding it, and finally a triangle enclosing them both to represent the Cloak of Invisibility.


Ø History of Deathly hallows in Harry potter

                The Tales of Beedle the Bard

"That is a children's tale, told to amuse rather than to instruct. Those of us who understand these matters, however, recognise that the ancient story refers to three objects, or Hallows, which, if united, will make the possessor Master of Death"

According to Xenophiles Lovegood

In The Tales of Beadle the Bard, the author presented his own version of the origin of the Hallows. Hundreds of years ago, the three Peverell brothers were travelling at twilight, and reached a river too dangerous to cross. The three brothers, being trained in the magical arts, simply waved their wands and created a bridge across the river. They were then stopped by Death himself, who felt cheated that they had gotten across the river, as most travellers drowned in it. Death, a cunning liar, then pretended to congratulate them on being clever enough to evade him, and offered each of them a powerful magical item.
              The first brother, Antioch Peverell, wished to have the most powerful wand out of his combative personality; Death broke a branch off a nearby elder tree and created for him the Elder Wand, a wand more powerful than any other in existence.
             The second brother, grave; Death then took a stone from the riverbed and created for him the Resurrection Stone, a stone capable of bringing the dead back to the living world.
            The third brother, Ignotus Peverell, who was a humble man, did not trust Death and asked to go on from the river without being followed by Death; Death then gave him his own Cloak of Invisibility, an invisibility cloak that never lost its power through curses or age. The three legendary objects, (the cloak, the wand and the stone) together make up the Deathly Hallows.

“[...] I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects"
                                                  Albus Dumbledore's speculation.

                  Instead of being rewards for their cleverness, the Deathly Hallows was actually part of a cunning plan by Death to kill off the Peverell so he could take them for his own.

                However, Albus Dumbledore felt that it was more likely that the Hallows were actually created by the very talented and powerful brothers, and that the story of their origins as objects fashioned by Death sprang up around them as result of the powers they possessed.

Ø Movement of the Hallows

Antioch's murder

So the oldest brother, who was a combative man, asked for a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must always win duels for its owner, a wand worthy of a wizard who had conquered Death!"
                                                               -Antioch Peverell

            In time, the brothers went their separate ways. Antioch Peverell travelled to a wizarding village where he killed a wizard he had once dueled with, he then boasted of the power of the Elder Wand, that it was unbeatable and in his possession, invoking envyamongst the many wanting to possess it for themselves.His throat was sliced in his sleep by a wizard who stole the Elder Wand.

Cadmus' Unfortunate Death

"Then the second brother, who was an arrogant man, decided that he wanted to humiliate Death still further, and asked for the power to recall others from Death"
                                                                                            -Cadmus Peverell

               Cadmus travelled back home and used the Resurrection Stone to bring back the woman he loved, but was dismayed to find that it was only a pale imitation of her: the dead did not truly belong in the living world. In the end, Cadmus committed suicide by hanging himself so he could truly join her.

Ignotus' Unusual Friend

"It was only when he had attained great age that the youngest brother finally took off the Cloak of Invisibility and gave it to his son."
                                                                                    —Ignotus Peverell

            Ignotus used the cloak to remain hidden from Death for a long time. When he was an old man, he passed the cloak onto his son, greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him to the next world.

             The cloak continued to be passed down through the descendants of the Peverell (although the name became extinct in the male line). The wand passed from wizard to wizard, nearly always by the murder of its previous owner. The wand, during its passing from wizard to wizard, has been called "The Death Stick" and the "Wand of Destiny". On an interesting note, no witch is ever stated to have held possession of the wand. The stone was also passed down through the Peverells' descendants. It eventually ended up in the possession of the House of Gaunt, and was later stolen by Tom Marvolo Riddle, neither Tom nor Marvolo Gaunt were aware of the powers of the stone, nor was that it a Hallow. Marvolo was solely concerned with the "noble origins" of the stone, made into a ring, and thought that the Hallows symbol on it was the family coat of arms. Lord Voldemort could not have been aware of the stone's true origin either, as he transformed the stone into a Horcrux.

"There is nothing Dark about the Hallows at least, not in that crude sense. One simply uses the symbol to reveal oneself to other believers, in the hope that they might help one with the Quest."
                                                                              —Xenophiles Lovegood

             The Hallows played a particularly important role in the lives of Albus Dumbledore, Gellert Grindelwald, and Harry Potter.


"I was fit only to possess the meanest of them, the least extraordinary. I was fit to own the Elder Wand, and not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it."
                                                                               -  Albus Dumbledore

                Harry Potter first observed this sign in a memory seen in Albus Dumbledore's Pensive, though he did not recognise it at the time. The sign was featured on a ring owned by Marvolo Gaunt, though Gaunt himself was unaware of what the sign represented, nor the fact that his ring actually contained the Resurrection Stone inside it. He instead referred to the sign as "Peverell coat of arms" in an attempt to bolster his credentials as a pureblood. Harry would later recall seeing the mark after learning about the Hallows from Xenophilius Lovegood and this, in turn, would lead him to realise that Albus Dumbledore had hidden the Resurrection Stone inside the Golden Snitch that he had granted him in his will. Harry next observed this symbol at Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour's wedding on 1 August, 1997, hanging around the neck of Xenophilius Lovegood as a necklace. At the time, Harry thought the symbol looked like a triangular eye. A bit later, however, he was confronted by Viktor Krum, who wanted to know if Harry Weaslknew Lovegood well. Harry asked why, and Krum stated that he would duel Lovegood for wearing the sign, were he not a guest of Fleur's. He explained to a puzzled Harry that the sign was Gellert Grindelwald's mark, which he had carved into a wall during his time at Durmstrang Institute. Some students later copied it into their books and clothes, thinking to shock and to make themselves impressive. Others who had lost family members to Grindelwald, including Viktor, corrected them. Harry, thinking it highly unlikely that Xenophilius would be involved in any sort dark magic, suggested that perhaps he did not know what the symbol meant and thought it instead to be a cross section of a Crumple HornedSnorkack or something of the sort. Krum, however, remained unconvinced and later confronted Xenophilius.In December of that year, Hermione Granger was reading over The Tales of Beedle the Bard, when she saw the sign drawn over the title of one of the stories. She asked Harry to have a look at it, but Harry was reluctant, as he had never studied runes. Hermione, however, pointed that the sign was not in the Spellman's Syllabary. Harry consented to examine the sign more closely and said that it looked like the sign that Xenophilius was wearing around his neck, which Hermione agreed with. Harry explained how Krum had said that the sign was Grindelwald's mark, but this did not make sense to Hermione, as Grindelwald was not known historically to have any Particular mark.A while later in the month, as Harry and Hermione took a trip to Godricʹs Hollow; they chose to visit the graveyard where Harry's parents were buried. Here, Hermione discovered the grave of Ignotus Peverell (the original owner of the Cloak of Invisibility) and found the Sign of the Deathly Hallows marked upon it, though she did not pay much attention to it at the time due to Harry's desire to find his parents' grave. Towards the end of the month, following the discovery of the Sword of Gryffindor and Ron Weasley's return to the group, Hermione was examining a copy of Albus Dumbledore's letter to Gellert Grindelwald in The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore when she noticed that Dumbledore had replaced the "A" in his signature with aminiature replica of this symbol. Seeing this led her to decide that it was important that she and the others pay a visit to Xenophilius Lovegood, whom she was sure, could tell those more about the sign. Harry was less convinced, but was outvoted by her and Ron. When asked, Xenophilius explained that one wears the sign to identify oneself to other believers in the hope that they might help with the Quest to the find the Hallows. Since, however, the group was not familiar with the Hallows, Xenophilius had Hermione read them The Tale of the Three Brothers from The Tales of Beedle the Bard to explain. He then drew first the straight line, then the circle and finally the triangle to create the mark and represent the three Hallows. He later stated that the appearance of the symbol on Ignotus Peverell's grave was considered proof that the Peverells were in fact the brothers described in the Tale of the Three Brothers.


Here it is

The Elder Wand,” drew a straight vertical line upon the parchment."The Resurrection Stone,” added a circle on top of the line. "The Cloak of Invisibility, enclosing both line and circle in a triangle, to make the symbols that so intrigued Hermione “Together," he said, "the Deathly Hallows."

v Symbolism

Ø Important Symbols in Deathly Hallows

            The Deathly Hallows symbol appears to be made up from the Greek letters Δ and Φ , transliterated into English language and letters this appears to spell the word D + Phi . Together these letters appear to spell phi or Defy; therefore this would make sense since the Deathly Hallows enables the user to defy or conquer death himself.
D + Ph = Dphi, defy

             Isn't Δ actually "delta" which would make it Delta phi... which wouldn't make sense...however, D + P = DP = Dr. Pepper, obviously it means that Dr. Pepper is the official drink of Harry Potter.


Thus in this way we can interpret the significance of Deathly Hallows in the 7th series of Harry Potter.   

Narration of Nation in Grain of wheat

                                 
                               The Grain of wheat



Name – Shital D Italiya                     
Assignment Paper no – 14 (African Literature)
Topic – Narration of Nation in Grain of Wheat 
Roll no – 29
Enrolment no – PG13101012
Submitted to – Smt. S.B. Gardy Department of English
                                    M.K. Bhavnagar University
                                              Bhavnagar

Introduction
                          
                     A grain of Wheat is Ngugi Wa Thiongo’s third novel, and marks a significant turn in his literary production, as a Marxist and Fanonian militant attitude replaces the liberal Christianize of his first works. The action of the novel focuses on the protagonists’ remembrance of the events of the “mau mau” revolt, which Ngugi sees as the only historical moments which allows “the space to imagine the birth of a new Kenya”. The way these events are recounted and reshaped is a collective one, as a shifting focalization and a complex time structure create a polyphonic, choral narrative that shows in detail the physical, psychological and political impact of revolt on individuals living in a small community. The novel is set in Thabai, an imaginary Gikuyu village of Kenya’s white Highlands, in the days preceding and following 12 December 1963, the days Kenya got its independence. The latter is continually evoked in the narration with the Swahili word “uhuru”. Ngugi’s choice not to translate this term is significant, as in the novel the definition of the actual meaning of uhuru is an open political and social question. The new Kenyan bourgeoisie sees it indeed as the possibility to replace the colonizer without changing the existing social, political and economic structure, where as for Gikuyu peasants Uhuru means a profound break with the colonial past, are birth which has to bring about the restitution of the lands usurped by the white settlers and the eradication of poverty.


v Ngugi Wa Thiongo’s use of language.
                              Ngugi Wa Thiongo’s A Grain of wheat is a Kenyan novel written in English, a language traditionally associated with colonialism and oppression in Africa. Despite the fact that the novel is written in English, Ngugi still uses language to speak to the novel’s theme of revolutionary by incorporating his native Gikuyu in the form of proverb and folk songs. Additionally, the novel juxtaposes these Gikuyu proverbs with verses and parables from the Christian Bible, a medium through which missionaries spread English early in its history in Kenya. Though Ngugi wrote a grain of wheat in English, he manipulates and uses language in order to promote Gikuyu and Kenyan culture and to discredit English as a Kenyan language. In portraying English in a negative light in his novel, Ngugi reveals his opposition to English as a language of African literature and his larger national concerns for Kenya after his colonization and for its new status as an independent nation.

                 Another way in which Ngugi criticizes anti nationalist betrayals is through his descriptions of Karanja’s speech interaction with the European official for whom he works. Communication between the two races, represented by Karanja and John Thompson, appears blocked and futile. Ngugi writes:

“Many times karanja had walked towards Thompson determined to ask him a direct question. Cold water lumped in his belly, his heart would thunder violently when he came near the white man. His determination always ended in the same way: he would salute John Thompson and then walks past as if his business lay further ahead”.

                             This passage details karanja’s inability to communicate with the white. Though he is “determined” he never succeeds in verbally communicating with Thompson. Ironically, the colonial official karanja, the character most likely to use English is unable to do so. Rather, the only communication that he achieves is nonverbal, and is a sign of deference. Karanja’s deference and subservience directly contrast Kihika’s “ cult of personality” in the revolutionary movements, Ngugi seems to be paralleling Kihika’s it’s figures like jomo Kenyatta, who charismatically lead resistance movements against the British: “ it is less the institution than the person of the presidence who is able  to organize the people” of Kenya. Ngugi seems to criticize karanja’s resistance and failure to use language at all, never mind in defense of his country, as further evidence of his anti nationalist betrayal and negative role in the novel.

                   The construction of the nation in A Grain of Wheat is explicitly represented as a narration, a linguistic act: indeed most of the events of the revolt are not related directly, but refracted through the conscience of its heroes and heroines: it is their narration which is represented, and it is through their narration that those historical events are relived, following a narrative strategy typical of orature. In the novel “every significant development either consists of or turns on acts of speech of their absence”: the events are evoked and put one besides the other as mosaic tesseras through the heroes’ dialogues, confessions and free indirect style monologues. Most of the action actually consists of “an intricate network of speech acts performed and unperformed, acknowledge and unacknowledged”,
“A great deal of it centers on bringing ergon into proper relation with logos”:

The main problem turns out to be the reliability of these narratives, which are not only fragmentary but quite often contradictory as well,
“Creating instability about what is known and what it means to know”.

Uhuru movement
           
                   The meaning of uhuru is the central question in this novel; it is quite far from being obvious: so much so that Ngugi clarifies what Uhuru should be only in the 1986 version of the novel, when the former “mau mau”

Guerilla General R. states in his independence speech “we got uhuru today. But what’s the meaning of ‘uhuru’? It is contained in the name of our movement: Land and freedom”.
                     The whole novel can indeed be summarized as a collective act of recalling and reflecting on the events leading to uhuru, in order to understand what actual meaning it should/ could have for Thabai peasants. It is precisely in the act of recalling and reflecting on the past that A Grain of Wheat constructs a narration of the nation: the pedagogic moment materializes in a performative moment disseminate in lots of narrative. Each of which is a speech act. The narration becomes therefore an active construction of the past, an act of writing, in the sense of modeling.
v The choice of Genre
                     The choice of the genre is in this sense significant, as in many European and Latin American countries the novel and especially the historical novel – has been a privileged cultural focus to construct a national conscience. As Benedict Anderson, drawing from Benjamin’s concept of “homogenous, empty time”. Has pointed out,
“The idea of sociological organism moving calendrically through homogeneous, empty time is a precise analogue f the idea of the nation”
                 The realistic novel, with its many characters acting simultaneously in a shared time and space, constructed a community in which the existence of individual is articulated in the same geographical and temporal frame. The historical, in its added temporal depth to these communities sharing a localized simultaneity, rendering them historical by the establishment of a link of direct succession between the readers and the generation that had preceded them.
              The central idea is presented through the themes and the deep meaning of the words which enters in the life of characters of the novel. The word “Unity” which means “the idea of independence and freedom.” In the novel what is needed is unity. What Kihika has said,

“Unity is the strength of the people against
The weapons and strength of the British.”

                   The novel explores the idea o unity, extending it to include Community in individual’s personal life as well as political life. Unity takes place to get independence a free nation. Independence “not being slave.”Freedom ability to act freely right to free will. What is needed for getting united an achieving for one aim. The characters have shown that ability to be union as set free the nation. Another aspect which arises is universal experience comes from confession and communication. Confession is the key for individuals to relieve own minds and hearts, and also the key for individuals to make a life gathered and open up communication which is the cornerstone of unity. Culture is what Thompson desperately wants to impose upon Africa and sees British culture as the height of human being. Gandhiji’s words are presented through the characters of the novel “A Grain of Wheat”,

“Our struggle for freedom is to bring peace in the world”.
Anonymous Narrator

                All these fragments are kept together by some connecting passages narrated by an anonymous narrator whose voice is entrusted by Ngugi with relating the collective vicissitude of the country, a strategy which makes the “a national epic” that “affirms the values of community”. It would be misleading though to present these passages as direct interventions of the writer, because here the narrator is himself is represented; he is not an objective word, but an objectified one:  the anonymous narrator of these passages in fact employs the modes of orature and speaks like traditional story teller, a relating the struggle waged by the Gikuyu warriors against the railway introduced by the British, is in this sense a paradigmatic example:
Waiyaki and other – leader took arms. The iron snake spoken of by Mugo wa Kibiro was quickly wriggling towards Nairobi for a through exploitation of the hinterland. Could they move it? The sake held on to the ground, laughing their efforts to scorn. The Whiteman with bamboo poles that vomited fire and smoke, hit back; his menacing laughter remained echoing in the hearts of the people, long after Waiyaki had been arrested and taken to the coast, bound hands and feet. later, so it is said, Waiyaki was buried alive at Kibwezi with his head facing into the centre of the earth, a living warning to those, who, in after years, might challenge the hand of the Christian woman whose protecting shadow now bestrode both land and sea.

                      In Lee Haring’s words here “folklore is used as a device of group characterization”. We are before a typical example of orature, more precisely that Isidore who, in his genre classification of orature defines “historical legend”. However, this narrator – storyteller if far from being omniscient, as his voice is embedded among the voices of the heroes: it could have been possible of speak of identification between author and narrator if Ngugi had put all the vicissitudes of his characters within an external narrative frame, endowed with a narrator whose voice was above all the others’, but this is not the case. The narrator’s voice is only one among many voices, even though its connecting function puts it in a central position. In this way Ngugi can at once reconnect himself with traditional storyteller and distance himself from him, showing how he can no longer be such a figure, as the society to which storytellers belonged no longer exists.
                       Nevertheless, it is the storyteller’s narratives that function as keystones I the construction of the nation: on the narrative structure level, they are the axis which gives meaning and keeps together all the narrative fragments; on the other hand, on personal plural and by a consistent referral to a “we”, a community whose geographical extension and temporal depth seem to extend well beyond the Gikuyu people, even though they are centered on Thabai village, at different times referred to as “our village” : it might be said that this narrator is a Gikuyu who speaks for the whole Kenya. Moreover, in some passages the anonymous narrator addresses his audience saying “you”, thus placing himself in the position of someone speaking “for the people and to the people”. It is not a mere stylistic question this modus narration is divides to construct a Kenyan community, imagining it as a nation, i.e. community linked to a geographical space and endowed with temporal depth. This view, centered on the Gikuyu but addressed to the whole nation, reflects perfectly Ngugi’s idea of Kenya as a melting pot of all its various people. In this perspective, the African community is placed at the centre, as witnessed by the reference of Kenya in the novel as the “country of black people” and by the statement of one of its main heroes, Kihika, that “Kenya belongs to black people”. More precisely, at the centre of this “imagined community” there is a rural community; it is the Gikuyu peasants whom Ngugi peasant whom Ngugi choose as heroes of his novel and of his narration of nation.
                        Here he fully endorses Fanon’s thesis on the central role of the peasants in the anticolonial struggle, and accordingly depicts the countryside as an environmental where human being can live in harmony with nature, where as the city is represented as a place of corruption and deceit ruled by that same elite that escape its national duties and keeps at a distance rural masses. This romantic view of the relationship between land and people is a topos of nationalism, but has its roots also in the pre-colonial tradition of Gikuyu culture, wherein the land was seen as “mother”. Indeed, the flexibility of the novel genre allows Ngugi to drew a lot of culture elements from European and African traditions, reshape them and give them new meaning; he employs the narrative modes of African orature, mixes up biblical and Gikuyu mythologies, employs the techniques of detective stories, finds inspiration for the plot, the characters and the time structure in Joseph Conrad’s works and enlivens his novel with the militant nationalism of Gakaara wa Wanjau.




v Title of the novel

              The title of the novel is taken from the New Testament, and refers to a passage from Paul’s first letter to Corinthians which is placed as an epigraph at the very beginning;
“Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat or some other grain”.
              The reference to the “grain of wheat” links this epigraph to a second one, taken from John’s Gospel, which opens the last part of the novel
“verily, verily I say unto you, expect a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it adideth alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit”
                These quotations give a religious and epic tone to the novel and assert the necessity of a the last part construct this rebirth as a mythical and utopical palingenesis;
“And a saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away”.

 The theme of heroism and sacrifice crosses the whole work; this is not surprising, for as Ernest Renan explained in 1882,


“le capital social sur lequel on assied une idée nationale” is made up most of all of “un passé heroique, des grands homes, de la gloire”. In Grain of Wheat the heroic character par excellence is the late Kihika, the courageous guerilla leader full of messianic spirit.”

                 Though in this way we can interpret the narration of Nation in Grain of Wheat. It’s narration through the Narrator and the Movements of Africa in which Kenya has been suffered.