ઉચ્ચ બૌદ્ધિક લેખકોને

"ઉચ્ચ બૌદ્ધિક લેખકોને"

 ‘To.... the Modern writers’

દુનિયામાં દરેક માણસો પોતપોતાની રીતે પોતાનું જીવન સુખેથી કે પછી પરાણે જીવતા હોય છે. પણ અમુક અભાગિયા જીવોને પોતાના મહામુશ્કેલીથી વ્યતિત થતાં જીવનની અસંતોષી, કરુણ, નિરસ અસમંજસયુક્ત પરિસ્થિતિઓ બીજાને ધરાર જણાવીને બીજાનાં બે ઘડીનાં સુખને પણ છીનવી લેવાનો શોખ હોય છે. આવા જીવો વળી લેખકો બને અને પછી બીજાની પથારી ફેરવે. એ પણ જેવા તેવા નહીં ઉચ્ચ કોટિનાં.

આ શ્રેષ્ઠતમ પદને પ્રાપ્ત કરવા તે નવા નવા અખતરા કર્યા કરે. અન્ય સામાન્ય લેખકોથી કંઈક જુદું કરવા તેઓ પોતાની ન સમજાય તેવી, ગુંચવાડા વાળી પદ્ધતિઓ રચ્યા કરે. એ વિચાર્યા વગર (અથવા જાણી જોઇને, બદલો વાળવા) કે એનાં અભાગિયા, અણસમજુ વાચકો પર એનાં આવા અખતરાઓની શી અસર થશે?!!!

ચિત્ર-વિચિત્ર, આડા- અવળા કટકાઓ જોડી કહેશે આમાંથી તમને શું સમજાયું? અર્થ શોધો? એ ધડ માથા વગરના ભેગા કરેલા કટકા જોઇને ભલા ભોળા માણસ ને એમાં કયો અર્થ દેખાવાનો હતો? જુદા જુદા કટકાઓ ગણવામાં જ મગજનું દહીં થઇ જાય એમાં વળી અર્થ ક્યાંથી જડે?!!!! વળી ક્યારેક આવા મેધાવી લેખકને દુનિયા ઉપર દાઝ ચઢે અને હેરાન કરવાનું મન થાય તો એક દિવસની ઘટનાનું એવું વર્ણન કરશે કે એને વાંચવામાં કેટલાયે દિવસો, અરે મહિનાઓ વીતી જાય અને વાચકની દુર્દશાથી દુર્ઘટના ઘટી જાય.

વિશ્વાસ ન આવતો હોય તો એક નાનકડો નમુનો ઉદાહરણ તરીકે આપું. ગુજરાતી વાચકો જેમણે અંગ્રેજીની ‘Stream of Consciousness’ નવલકથાઓ વાંચી ન હોય તેમનાં માટે એક સરળ ટ્રેઇલર (આના પરથી આખા પિક્ચરની કલ્પના કરી લેજો!)

"એણે આવું નો'તું કરવું જોઈતું, બધાની વચ્ચે કહેવાની શું જરૂર હતી?" આસપાસ બટેટા, ટમેટા, રીંગણાંને છૂટાં પાડતા પાડતાં પ્રજ્ઞા એ વિચાર્યું. હાથમાં એક બટેટુ લઇ એણે કટરથી છાલ ઉતારવાનું શરુ કર્યું. એ આદર્શવાદી હોય તો શું થયું! બધા વચ્ચે એ નિકેતનને નિરસ, આળસુ, બેજવાબદાર એવું કેમ કહી શકે?  ફેલાયેલા શાકભાજીને ભેગા કરી એણે થોડીક જગ્યા કરી. તપેલીમાં પાણી ભરી છોલેલું બટેટુ એમાં નાખ્યું. એ ઉંમરમાં નાનો હોય તોય શું એને પણ માન-અપમાન જેવું તો હોયને? પંદર વર્ષનાં છોકરાને ખરાબ તો લાગ્યું જ હોય. (આડા આવતા ટમેટા ને હાથથી ખસેડતાં એણે વિચાર્યું)

દરેક માં ની જેમ પ્રજ્ઞાને પણ એવું જ લાગતું કે એ એનાં દિકરા નિકેતનને સહુથી વધુ સમજી શકે છે. એટલે જ ગઈ કાલની વાતની અસર એનાં ઉપર વધારે થઇ હતી.

બટેટાની છાલનાં ઢગલાં એને તપેલી વચ્ચેનું અંતર ઘટતું ગયું. ત્યાં પડેલું છેલ્લું બટેટુ લઇ તેણે છોલવાનું શરુ કર્યું. રાજા હરિશ્ચંદ્રનાં સત્યવાદીપણા ને આદર્શોને લીધે એનાં પરિવારને કેટલું ભોગવવું પડ્યું હશે! કદાચ નવમાં ધોરણમાં એ પાઠ આવતો, એ સ્કૂલનાં બેન કેવું સરસ ભણાવતાં! પત્ની, પુત્ર એ બધા તો વગર વાંકે સહન કરતા રેહતા હોય છે. અને હરિશ્ચંદ્ર તો અમર થઇ ગયા! (એણે વિચાર્યું) હાથમાં પડેલું બટેટુ છટકીને તપેલીમાં પડ્યું. અવાજ આવ્યો, થોડું પાણી પણ ઉડ્યું. બટેટાની છાલોને એણે ફટાફટ સમેટીને કચરામાં નાખી. એક બે ખાના ખોલી ચપ્પુ શોધ્યું પણ મળ્યું નહીં. 'અરે બાપ- દિકરા વચ્ચે હું પીસાય ગઈ છું', શાકભાજીનાં ઢગ નીચેથી ચપ્પુ લઇ એણે છોલેલાં બટેટા સુધારવાનું શરુ કરતા કરતા એનાથી બોલી જવાયું, બીજાનાં આદર્શો અને માનને સાચવી જીવવું કેટલું અઘરું છે! પોતે ભણવામાં હોશિયાર હોય તો શું એણે નિકેતન પાસેથી આટલી બધી અપેક્ષાઓ રાખવાની!! પપ્પા કેટલી રોકટોક કરે છે, એને મારા માટે કાંઈ લાગણી જ નથી. બીજા બધાનાં હંમેશા વખાણ કરે એને મને સંભળાવવાનો એકે મોકો ચુકતા નથી. એક વાર ગુસ્સામાં નિકેતન બોલ્યો'તો પણ ખરો. (એની આંખ સામેથી નીકેતનનો ફરિયાદ કરતો ચહેરો પસાર થયો) આટલી દુર સારી જગ્યા એ જઈએ તોય કાઈ ફાયદો નહીં. બધું સરખું જ. વીણી વીણી ને લીધા તોય બટેટુ સડેલું નીકળ્યું. સડેલા ભાગને કાપી,બાજુ પર મૂકી, બાકીનું બટેટુ સુધારતાં સુધારતાં એણે વિચાર્યું. એય પાછા કહેતા હોય છે આ ઉંમરે છોકરાઓ ને બહુ છૂટ-છાટ આપવાથી બગડી જાય એનાં કરતાં થોડું ધ્યાન આપવું સારું. પણ આમ બધા પરિવારજનો બેઠા હોય, એનાં જેવડા છોકરાંઓ પણ હાજર હોય ત્યારે રોક-ટોક તો ન જ કરાય ને! ઉલ્ટાનું એ સુધરવાને બદલે આપણાથી દુર જાય ને આડે રસ્તે ચડી જાય….

ડોરબેલ સંભળાયો.

હાથ ધોઈ, પાલવથી લૂછતાં લૂછતાં એણે દરવાજો ખોલ્યો.

"મમ્મી રસોઈ બનાવી નાખી!! પણ હું ને પપ્પા તો સાથે જમીને આવ્યા!" નિકેતને હસતાં હસતાં કહ્યું,

" મેં નવી બનેલી રેસ્ટોરાંનાં વખાણ કર્યા તો પપ્પા મને ટેસ્ટ કરવા લઇ ગયા એને છેલ્લે અમે બંને એ અઈસ્ક્રીમે ખાધો!!!"

                                              -  Inspired from 'To the Lighthouse'  by Virginia Woolf

                                          

હવે પાંચ મીનીટની બટેટા છોલવાની નાની એવી ઘટના ને વાંચતા પંદર મિનીટ થાય અને સમજતાં અડધો કલાક, એય નસીબ સારા હોય તો નહીતર પાંચ દિવસેય ટપ્પા ન પડે તો સમજી લેજો કે તમે પણ આ રચનાનાં અત્યાચારનો ભોગ બન્યા છો.

એમાં બિચારાં માસુમ, નિર્દોષ જીવો જેવા વાચકો એની ભુલભુલામણી જેવી રચનાઓમાં ભૂલા પડી જાય અને કરોળિયાનાં જાળામાં જેમ જંતુઓ અટવાય તેમ આવી રચનામાં અટવાયા કરે. આખરે એવું લાગે કે આ બૌદ્ધિક બદમાશોથી એમ છુટાય એવું નથી એટલે છટકવા એમને બૌદ્ધિક બળુકાઓ  તરીકે સ્થાપિત કરી દે. અને એ સામાન્ય જીવો ને સમજાતા નથી એટલે ઉચ્ચ કોટિનાં બૌદ્ધિક લેખકો છે એમ એને વ્યાખ્યિત કરી મન મનાવી લે. 

પોતાની અંદરના  ઉકળાટ ને  અસમંજસને ઠાલવવા તે પોતાની રચનાંને જ અઘરી બનાવે એટલે બીજા પણ એને વાંચી અસમંજસમાં આવી જાય. એના આવા ગુચવાળા સામાન્ય જીવોથી ઉકેલાય તેમ ન હોય એટલે વળી બીજો કોઈ વંઠેલો વિવેચક એની ગૂંચ ઉકેલવાનું બીડું ઝડપે, એ બૌદ્ધિક લેખકની રચનાનું પોસ્ટમોટમ કરી રફે-દફે અને એના ઉપર પ્રયોગો કરી નવા નવા તારણો તારવે. એણે તારવેલા તારણોની સાબિતી ને સમજુતી માટે બીજા પાંચ-દસ ગ્રંથો લખી નાખે.

બસ આમ વિવેચકો અને વિવેચનો ની સંખ્યા વધતી જાય અને તેમનાં બૌદ્ધિક તીરો વચ્ચે વાચકો મુંજાતા જાય.

આવી અકળ, અસમજ અસામાન્ય રચનાઓ અને વિવેચનોનાં વિશ્વમાં બિચારો નિર્દોષ વાચક જીવ અધમુઓ થઇ અટવાયા કરે છે અને આવી વણઉકેલ રચનાઓનાં અમરત્વની ધારાને અકારણ આગળ વધારે છે.

એટલે આવાં અટપટા, અઘરા, ઉચ્ચ બૌદ્ધિક લેખકોને વિનંતી કે એમની લાંબીલચક, નસમજાય તેવી, ગુચવાડા યુક્ત રચનાંઓથી  તેઓએ પોતાની અંદરનો ઉકળાટ અને અસંતોષ તો ઠાલવ્યો પણ અન્યને પોતાની અજીબ, અજોડ રચનાઓથી પોતાની સ્થિતિમાં નો અનુભવ કરાવી પોતાની જેવા ઉચ્ચતમ બૌદ્ધિક લેખકો ન બનાવે!

My Comments on Worksheets: Hamlet

Hamlet

Click here to view worksheet

1. How faithful is the movie to the original play?
2. · After watching the movie, has your perception about play, characters or situations changed?
3. · Do you feel ‘aesthetic delight’ while watching the movie? If yes, exactly when did it happen? If no, can you explain with reasons?
4. · Do you feel ‘catharsis’ while or after watching movie? If yes, exactly when did it happen? If no, can you explain with reasons?
5. · Does screening of movie help you in better understanding of the play?
6. · Was there any particular scene or moment in the movie that you will cherish lifetime?
7. · If you are director, what changes would you like to make in the remaking of movie on Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’?
8. In the beginning of the movie, camera rolls over the statue of King Hamlet out side the Elsinore castle. The movie ends with the similar sequence wherein the statue of the King Hamlet is hammered down to the dust. What sort of symbolism do you read in this? (Clue: In Book IX of 'Paradise Lost', Satan reflects on his revenge motive: "But what will not ambition and revenge; Descend to? Who aspires must down as low; As high he soared, obnoxious, first or last, To basest things. Revenge, at first though sweet, Bitter ere long back on itself recoils." Is it not King Hamlet's ambition to avenge his death responsible for the downfall of his kingdom which is symbolically pictured in last scenes?)
9. While studying the play through movie, which approach do you find more applicable to the play? Why? Give reasons with illustrations.
10. Which of the above mentioned approaches (in Pre-viewing task) appeals you more than other?Why? Give reasons.

Respected Sir,I will try my best to give your answers.

• Speaking honestly, still I don’t read original play by Shakespeare, but after seen the movie, whatever I understand I try to define.
• Coming to your questions, the movie is really very faithful to the original play. Whatever changes, Kenneth Branagh make is very artistic and give new way of looking.
• Before watching the movie I felt that ‘Hamlet’ is a good play of Shakespearean age. But after seeing the movie I feel that it is far better then my expectations. It is one of the best artistic tragedies even today.
• When Hamlet murdered Claudius I felt happy. Even when Hamlet trapped Claudius by playing drama performance and Claudius also accepted his crime against God I felt pleasure.
• At the end, when Hamlet take decision to kill Claudius and take revenge I felt relief. When Hamlet murdered Claudius very energetically and with full of action at that moment I really felt catharsis of my emotions.
• Of course, screening of movie can help us in better understanding. But first we must read original work then see the movie. It can help us in criticizing and we can also find out deference between them. It can help us to understand and imagine things properly and with different view.
• The scene when Ophelia gone mad and she sang a song I may not fagot for a long time. In the grave digging scene when Hamlet expresses his love for Ophelia with full of sorrow and madness, I remember the moment even today. I can also visualize very pale and painful face of dying father- Hamlet.
• Actually in the whole play, I only understand 40% because of language, but there are some points I really like. The language of play is very powerful. When Ophelia became med Laertes call her ‘Ros of May’. Even dialogues are also very effective. Hamlet’s dialogues are full of deep philosophy, with use of beautiful metaphors.
• The movie is really direct well and acting of actors like Ophelia, Hamlet are very realistic.with watching the movie, we can see artistic skills of both Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh. I am still not able to direct the movie so I can not give the answer of this question justifiably. If I make the movie, I may give more importance to Ophelia’s character.

Thank you.

My Comments on Worksheets: Waiting for Godot

Waiting for Godot

To view worksheet click here

What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree.Evening.”) of the play and paintings?

· The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree -The tree has four or five leaves - ?

· In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?


· The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?
· The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?
· Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshal who played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)?
· How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?
· Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?

· Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or . . .
· “The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you agree? How can you justify your answer?
· Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?
· Which of the following sequence you liked the most:
o Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting
o Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts
o Converstion of Vladimir with the boy
· Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?
· Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?
Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II?
So far as Pozzo and Lucky [master and slave] are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky to be Ireland." (Bert Lahr who played Estragon in Broadway production). Does this reading make any sense? Why? How? What?

Respected Sir,
here is my interpretations...
• Yes, Beckett, very intentionally, uses the painting as play’s setting. In the play there is ‘waiting’ for someone, for night. They are very much connected. The feelings and the attitude, he wants to show is seen in the painting and he carried it to his play’s setting. 
• Tree has very symbolic meanings. One interpretation suggests that, it is symbol of cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified. And further we can interpret that; they are waiting at the place where Christ was crucified for his second coming. Even in the play, Vladimir repeatedly says about myths of two thieves, it means he has hope for being saved. 
• In another act, Beckett grows leaves. Perhaps it is symbol of life and hope. Another day, they come with hope that, today Mr. Godot will arrive. Other interpretation is they want to die at previous night but leaves indicate life. They should live, and hope for Mr. Godot. But the modern symbols may differ from this. It seems that there is no connection between nature and humans. (opposite to romantic poems.)
• They are waiting for Godot, but when boy comes and says that, Mr. Godot will not come today but tomorrow, now they don’t have to wait for him( at day). Many times in the play, Vladimir refers that, they have to wait for Mr. Godot, otherwise they will be punished, and if they wait, they will be saved. So, for them, waiting is compulsory, they can’t move. So, they are waiting for ending of a day. Raising moon means their ending of waiting and they can do as they want. (Even they can kill their selves!!)
• ‘Nothing to be done’ is recurrently shown in the play. Two characters don’t do anything, even their waiting is meaningless. Godot doesn’t come and they don’t move. Only passing time which is meaningless. 
• Yes, it’s very true. Though the theme is nothingness but still it shows many things. Vladimir presents many philosophic, spiritual ideas and in his mind there is constant struggle about many ideas. So, the play has many things not only theme of “Nothingness”. 
• I agree with E.G. Marshal, the play is not pessimistic. It is very hopeful and characters don’t die means they cannot escape from habit of living though they have no reason or aim to live. 
• We can interpret hat as constructed mentality, Lucky needs hat to think. Our thoughts are not free from these constructed ideas. Changing Hat means changing ideas and thinking from others mentality. Perhaps Boot which hurts and not appropriate means we accept the ideas which feat well to us. Estragon cannot think high like Vladimir means these ideas are not feat him.
• Lucky’s behaviour is very irritating, and he is like an animal who doesn’t think. 
• It can be interpreted many ways. Perhaps Godot means God. (Though the writer denies, because as he is atheist, it shows his internal, unconscious struggle about God and ideas about it.), other interpretation, as per my understanding, is Godot means searching or waiting for aim or reason to live because at the night when they are informed that Godot will not come, they tried to kill themselves. It may be finding meaning in this meaningless world and actions. 
• When we are watching the play we have no time to think about individual dialogue which words have. But the performance can show which dialogues are much important with its tone, feeling, intention and acting. Even after finishing the play, it makes us thinking for long time. 
• Vladimir –Estragon’s dialogues.
• I don’t still believe in this existentialism as they believes that everything, every action is meaningless. Because if everyone started believing like that, then it becomes ‘Waste land’ and world cannot moves. Then what about human existence??
• But in the play, I feel effect of these ideas in act two when Pozzo is going and he talks with Vladimir –last few dialogues of pozzo’s exit. And last scene when two characters stand meaninglessly because nothing they did throughout the day only thinking, at last standing emotionlessly, directionless…
• Because of their habit of living, they don’t die. And their all the meaningless activity, irrational waiting and thinking lead them to the idea of suicide. 
• The political interpretation needs much knowledge of context, particular time and place, history and writer’s perspective, biographical study. Which I have not, so I cannot interpret it appropriately. 
Thank You...

My Comments on Worksheets: To the Lighthouse

To the Lighthouse

To view worksheet and questions in detail click here

How can you explain that 'what' Virginia Woolf wanted to say (for example, the complexity of human relationship, the everyday battles that people are at in their relationship with near and dear ones, the struggle of a female artist against the values of middle/upper class society etc) can only be said in the way she has said?

Do you agree: "The novel is both the tribute and critique of Mrs. Ramsay"

Considering symbolically, does the Lighthouse stand for Mrs. Ramsay or the narrator (Virginia Woolf herself who is categorically represented by Lily)?

What do you understand by the German term 'Künstlerroman'? How can you justify that 'To The Lighthouse' is 'Künstlerroman' novel? (100 words)

"... the wages of obedience is death, and the daughter that reproduces mothering to perfection, including child-bearing, already has on her cheeks the pallor of death. One reminded here of various texts by Lucy Irigaray, in which she attacks mothers for being, however unwillingly, accomplices in the patriarchal system of oppression." (Viola). In light of this remark, explain briefly Lily's dilemma in 'To The Lighthouse'. (100 words)

You have compared the 'beginning' and the 'ending' of the novel and the film adaptation of the novel directed by Colin Gregg (you can see it again in the embedded video below this). Do you think that the novel is more poignant than the movie? If yes, do you ascribe the power of appeal to words than to the screen?
How do you interpret the last line of the novel

Respected Sir, Here is my interpretations...

1. With biographical context, her writings are to show her capacity against the belief ‘Women can’t write, can’t paint” it can be said that ‘Stream of consciousness’ technique is the only way for her. In ‘To the lighthouse’, complexity in simplicity is the main focus. Virginia describes about psychology of a familiar relationships, human behaviour and thinking, even simple and formal feelings in complex events (Mrs. Ramsay’s death) and internal struggle about everything. She very minutely presents our thinking process without any excessive emotions (like melodrama) in the novel. And these can be described only with this technique.
2. Yes, the novel also criticizes Mrs. Ramsay’s character as the article suggest. Her character is good for all the men as she is sacrificing herself. But for females, her behaviour is not better. Like, her daughters have to suffer (one has to die), as they don’t want to sacrifice their ego and they have their own thinking. But she can live throughout the novel after her death, as her character is tributary, her so much remembrance shows that her character is given much importance. If Virginia wants to criticise her character, she presents her criticism after her death because the family have loss one of their daughter because of her. Even she can present that; even after Mrs. Ramsay’s lifelong services to her family, her family doesn’t remember a woman. The writer puts both the angles (Mrs. Ramsay and Lily) free to interpret as reader’s wish, not having any side.
3. As it is suggested in the presentation, we can interpret that Lighthouse stands for the symbol of Mrs. Ramsay. She always becomes emotional guide for other characters. As Lighthouse is central figure of the novel, she is also in centre and other characters surround her (like James, Mr. Ramsay, Lily’s dilemma about her character…). But, unfortunately, she becomes a wall between her husband and children. And after her death these distances and walls fall down. About narrator, with biographical context, we can say that, Virginia’s character is more presented in Lily’s character and her dilemma is Virginia Woolf’s own mental turmoil or dilemma, and Virginia puts Mrs. Ramsay’s character free to interpret, as we want. (As 2nd answer suggests)
5. “To the Lighthouse’ is many ways a ‘Kunstlerroman’ novel. It means which describes development or a struggle of an artist (as in ‘To the Lighthouse’ Lily’s character and the novel, itself is a struggle of an artist!). It also deals with ‘arrogant rejection of the commonplace life’, in this novel the character of Lily makes it ‘Kunstlerroman’ novel.
6. In brief, as 2nd answer says, it also criticises women, who believed in sacrificing and obedience of patriarchal world, who are ready to be ruled over her by patriarchal beliefs and society. Lily’s dilemma presents this. She has very strong rejection about patriarchal beliefs and throughout the novel; she wants to be equal as men without surrendering herself.
7. First, it’s very complicated to compare this. Because still I haven’t completed the novel! And visualising this novel is also very difficult because the novel is very open and no such emotional melodramatic events. But the novel is effective than movie because of the technique, she used. The flow of writing, description of thinking process and pictorial quality of words make it poignant than film. And movie simplifies it. But the end is effective and more clear, effective than novel.
8. Last line of the novel can be interpreted with two ways. First, ‘it is completed…’ means now, she proved to patriarchal world that, ‘women can paint, women can write’ and second, she completed Mrs. Ramsay’s painting and found her vision means her mental confusion or dilemma about Mrs. Ramsay’s character is clear. With reference to the movie, Lily favours Mrs. Ramsay’s character and she accepted her character with using her thinking like, ‘closed doors, open windows’.