English subject Class 11 NCERT Book Woven Words Essay Class 11 Lesson 3 Essay Patterns of Creativity Questions and Answers.
Understand The Text
1. How does Shelley’s attitude to science differ from that of Wordsworth and Keats?
2. It is not an accident that the most discriminating literary criticism of Shelley’s thought and work is by a distinguished scientist, Desmond King-Hele.’ How does this statement bring out the meeting point of poetry and science?
3. What do you infer from Darwin’s comment on his indifference to literature as he advanced in years?
4. How do the patterns of creativity displayed by scientists differ from those displayed by poets?
5. What is the central argument of the speaker?
Answers:
1. How does Shelley’s attitude to science differ from that of Wordsworth and Keats?
Answer:
Shelley had a positive attitude towards science, unlike Wordsworth and Keats who viewed science as something that destroyed the beauty and wonder of nature. While Wordsworth and Keats criticized science for dissecting and demystifying nature, Shelley saw science as a way to explore and expand the imagination. He believed that science and poetry could coexist and enrich each other.
2. ‘It is not an accident that the most discriminating literary criticism of Shelley’s thought and work is by a distinguished scientist, Desmond King-Hele.’ How does this statement bring out the meeting point of poetry and science?
Answer:
This statement suggests that poetry and science are not entirely opposed to each other. Desmond King-Hele, a scientist, offered deep literary criticism of Shelley’s work, showing that someone with a scientific background could understand and appreciate poetic imagination. This highlights a common ground between the two fields—both can involve creativity, deep thinking, and a quest for truth, even if approached differently.
3. What do you infer from Darwin’s comment on his indifference to literature as he advanced in years?
Answer:
Darwin’s comment reflects a loss of aesthetic sensitivity and emotional connection to art and literature as he became more focused on science. It suggests that intense scientific specialization might lead to a decline in appreciation for the imaginative and emotional aspects of life, which are central to literature and the arts.
4. How do the patterns of creativity displayed by scientists differ from those displayed by poets?
Answer:
The creativity of scientists is often focused on logical reasoning, problem-solving, and experimentation, aimed at understanding the physical world. In contrast, poets use imagination, emotion, and symbolism to explore human experience, beauty, and the mysteries of life. Scientists seek explanation, while poets often embrace wonder and ambiguity.
5. What is the central argument of the speaker?
Answer:
The speaker’s central argument is that there is a clear difference in the patterns of creativity between practitioners in the sciences and the arts, and this difference often leads to mutual misunderstanding or competition. Instead of directly answering why this happens, the speaker offers observations—such as the views of poets and scientists—to highlight the contrast and occasional overlap between the two realms.
Talking about the text
Discuss in small groups
1. ‘Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world’.
2. Poetry and science are incompatible.
3. ‘On reading Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, the question insistently occurs why there is no similar A Defence of Science written by a scientist of equal endowment.’
Answer:
1. ‘Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world’.
Answer:
This famous quote by Percy Bysshe Shelley suggests that poets influence society and shape values, emotions, and thoughts in subtle but powerful ways. Though they may not hold political power, their words shape public consciousness, inspire social change, and awaken moral and philosophical insight. Through imagination and expression, poets reveal truths about the human condition, making them silent yet impactful guides of society.
2. Poetry and science are incompatible.
Answer:
This is a debatable statement. While traditionally seen as opposites—poetry being emotional and intuitive, and science being rational and analytical—both fields are creative in their own ways. They each seek truth: science through evidence and logic, poetry through insight and imagination. The incompatibility arises when one dismisses the value of the other, but history shows figures like Shelley and Carl Sagan bridging the gap, suggesting that poetry and science can be complementary rather than conflicting.
3. ‘On reading Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, the question insistently occurs why there is no similar A Defence of Science written by a scientist of equal endowment.’
Answer:
This question highlights a cultural imbalance in how poetry and science are defended or valued. Shelley passionately articulated the power of poetry, but few scientists have expressed a similarly eloquent philosophical defense of science as a creative, humanistic endeavor. This may be due to the perception that science is self-evidently useful or because scientists are often trained to focus on data rather than rhetoric. However, the absence of such a defense leaves science vulnerable to misunderstanding, and a well-argued “Defence of Science” could help bridge the perceived gap between the two disciplines.
APPRECIATION
1. How does the ‘assortment of remarks’ compiled by the author give us an understanding of the ways of science and poetry?
2. Considering that this is an excerpt from a lecture, how does the commentary provided by the speaker string the arguments together?
3. The Cloud ‘fuses together a creative myth, a scientific monograph, and a gay picaresque tale of cloud adventure’— explain.
Answer:
1. How does the ‘assortment of remarks’ compiled by the author give us an understanding of the ways of science and poetry?
Answer:
The author’s “assortment of remarks” includes quotes, observations, and reflections from both poets and scientists, which helps the reader explore the differences and overlaps between science and poetry. By presenting views from Wordsworth, Keats, Shelley, Darwin, and Medawar, the author reveals how poets often view science as cold and analytical, while some scientists feel that literature can overshadow scientific thought. At the same time, the remarks also hint at a possible harmony, as seen in Shelley’s embrace of science. This variety of perspectives gives a nuanced understanding of how both disciplines approach creativity, truth, and beauty in different but sometimes connected ways.
2. Considering that this is an excerpt from a lecture, how does the commentary provided by the speaker string the arguments together?
Answer:
The speaker uses a conversational and reflective tone to tie together various viewpoints from poets and scientists. Rather than giving a rigid argument, the speaker presents a series of thoughts and examples, letting them naturally lead into one another. This style is effective in a lecture format because it encourages the audience to think critically and draw their own conclusions. The speaker’s method of citing poetry, scientific opinions, and personal insights creates a rich tapestry that explores the central theme: the difference in creative patterns between science and poetry, without forcing a single conclusion.
3. The Cloud ‘fuses together a creative myth, a scientific monograph, and a gay picaresque tale of cloud adventure’— explain.Answer:
In Shelley’s poem The Cloud, the poet blends mythical storytelling, scientific observation, and playful imagination to describe the journey of a cloud. The phrase “creative myth” refers to the poetic and symbolic elements—like the cloud speaking in the first person. The “scientific monograph” aspect lies in the accurate descriptions of natural processes like evaporation, condensation, and rainfall. The “gay picaresque tale” suggests a light-hearted adventure story, as the cloud playfully moves through the sky, encountering the sun, moon, and earth. Shelley’s poem thus becomes a unique fusion of science, art, and narrative, demonstrating how poetry can embrace and elevate scientific understanding.
LANGUAGE WORK
1. How do the words in bold, in the lines below, illustrate the poet’s ability to convey criticism cryptically?
Our meddling intellect Misshapes the beauteous forms of things:
We murder to dissect.
2. Explain the contradiction in the similes, ‘Like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb’.
3. Explain the metaphor in the line: ‘Poets are … the mirrors of gigantic shadows that futurity casts on the present’.
Answer:
1. How do the words in bold, in the lines below, illustrate the poet’s ability to convey criticism cryptically?
Our meddling intellect
Misshapes the beauteous forms of things:
We murder to dissect.
- “Meddling intellect” suggests that the analytical mind of science interferes with the natural beauty of the world.
- “Beauteous forms” implies that nature is inherently beautiful and whole.
- “Murder to dissect” is a powerful metaphor: to understand life by dissecting it, science ends up destroying it.
This poetic phrasing hides the harshness of the critique behind beauty and rhythm, making it thought-provoking rather than confrontational—a hallmark of poetic subtlety.
2. Explain the contradiction in the similes, ‘Like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb’.
Answer:
The contradiction lies in the opposing imagery of life and death:
- A child from the womb symbolizes birth, new beginnings, and vitality,
- While a ghost from the tomb symbolizes death, endings, and the past.
By placing these side by side, the poet evokes a paradox—perhaps to suggest that poetry (or inspiration) can be both life-giving and otherworldly, emerging from opposite realms of experience. It highlights the mysterious, dualist nature of creativity—born from both joy and sorrow, light and darkness.
**3. Explain the metaphor in the line:
‘Poets are … the mirrors of gigantic shadows that futurity casts on the present’.**
Answer:
This metaphor presents poets as mirrors reflecting the shadows of the future that are already present in the current time.
- “Gigantic shadows” suggests the immense and unknown possibilities or consequences of the future.
- “Futurity casts on the present” implies that the seeds of the future already exist today.
By calling poets the “mirrors” of these shadows, Shelley means that poets have a unique ability to sense, reflect, and express the hidden truths and emotions of what is yet to come. They help society become aware of emerging ideas, warnings, and hopes, making them visionaries ahead of their time.