Kindly check my precis and point out mistakes


CSS 1971


The essence of poetry is that it deals with events which concern a large number of people and can be grasped not as immediate personal experience but as matter known largely from heresy and presented in simplified and often abstract forms. it is thus the antithesis of all poetry which deals with the special, individual activity of the self and tries to present this as specially and as individually as it can. The poet who deals with public themes may himself be affected, even deeply, by contemporary events at some point in his own being, but to see them in their breadth and depth he must rely largely on what he hears from other men and from mass instruments of communication. From the start his impulse to write about them is different from any impulse to write about his own affairs. It may be just as strong and just as compelling, but it is not of the same kind. He has to give his own version of something which millions of others may share with him, and however individual he may wish to be, he cannot avoid relying to a large extent on much that he knows only from second hand.
Fundamentally this may not matter, for after all what else did Shakespeare do: but the political poet does not construct an imaginary past, he attempts to grasp and interpret a vast present. Between him and his subject there is a gap which he can never completely cross, and all his attempts to make events part of himself must be to some extent hampered by recalcitrant elements in them, which he does not understand or cannot assimilate or find irrelevant to his creative task. in such poetry selection which is indispensable to all art, has to be made from an unusually large field of possibilities and guided by an exacting sense of what really matters and what does not. On one side he may try to include too much and lose himself in issues where be is not imaginatively at home, on the other side he may see some huge event merely from a private angle which teed not mean much to others. Political poetry oscillates between these extremes, and its history in our time has been largely attempts to make the best of one or the other of them or to see what compromises can be made between them.

Original passage 400 words
precis: 141 words
TITLE : DILEMMA OF POETRY
Poetry depicts popular events, emerged unconventionally, in comprehensible and ideal form. However, reversal of poetry elucidates individualism. Poet might be immensely influenced by current circumstances but to fathom their gravity he must depend upon public opinion. His instinct to present his own predicament though same in magnitude but differs from the instinct to highlight others' viewpoint. He has to exhibit an interpretation which exhibit general perception. But political poet can't afford to be imaginative. He has to elucidate present, realistically. There always remain an insurmountable fissure between him and his subjects.His endeavor to create correlation with scenario is halted by his self-perceived abstruse and defiant elements.He always sways between two extremes. He might display general perception about the event at the cost of individualism or vice versa. moreover, political history aptly elaborates one extreme or other establishes a balance between them.

It's mine..!! Words. 118.!
The gist of the poetry is that it represents those events which concern with numerous people in simplified and generalized forms. In this sense, a poet has to rely upon other sources as well along with his individual viewpoint. He enunciates what he shares with others. Additionally, a political poet understands and elaborates present events instead of imaginative past. But there remains a gap between him and his subject owing to incomprehensibility of events. Moreover, in such type of poetry, selection of relevant possibilities is also crucial. Hence, political poetry lies in between these two extremes, individuality and collective thinking, and presently there is focus on making the best use of anyone of the two or considering both.

Title:
Dilemma in writing political poetry

__________________
“There's no shortcut of certain success"

yours is more organized than mine

Yours contain difficult vocab.. I think you need to be chary about it... It should be mature but not difficult, in the sense, it should be comprehensible by all and sundry.In terms of articulation yours is good.. Another point is topic which is the most misunderstood one.. This article is not about poetry rather its about political poetry.. Read the last line of para.

__________________
“There's no shortcut of certain success"

Up to a point the Second German War resembled the first. Each began with a German bid for power which almost succeeded in spite of the opposition of France and Great Britain. In each the United States came to the rescue after year of neutrality. Each ended with a German defeat. But the differences were easier to see than the resemblances. The powers were differently grouped: Italy and Japan were on the German side, Russia was neutral until the Germans attacked across what had been, to begin with, Poland and Baltic States. The second war lasted even longer than the other. It pressed harder on the civilian population. After a period of restraint, perhaps, intended to conciliate American opinion, both sides dropped bombs from the air, without respect for the nature of the targets, wherever the officers concerned expected to cause the greatest effect. In Great Britain 60,000 civilians were killed. Though the Island was not invaded, the population was more directly involved than it was in any former war. Children and others were evacuated from towns into the country. Food supplies ran so short that, at the worst, even potatoes were rationed. Of all the states opposed to Germany, Great Britain was the only one which fought throughout the war. The resources of the nation were concentrated in the war effort more completely than those of any other nation on either side. Labour for women as well as men, became compulsory. Nevertheless, once the war reached its full severity in the west, eight months after it was declared, there was less disunion between classes and interests than in any other five years within living memory. Fighting spread all over the world. The Pacific was as vital a theatre as Europe. Scientists, especially Physicists, made revolutionary discoveries during the war, not only in the fields of weapons and defence against them, but in supply, transport, and control in action. Strange to say the fight services suffered fewer casualties than in 1914-18: 300,000 of the armed forces and 35,000 of the navy were killed. There was nothing like the trench warfare of former war, though there was almost every other sort of warfare, from mechanized war of movement in the North African desert to hand to hand jungle fighting in Burma. Both sides experimented and built up stocks for gas warfare and biological warfare, but neither side used them. (George Clark: English History: a survey)


Original passage: 404 words
Precis:136
TITLE: GERMANY' WARS- A COMPARISON

Germany' two wars are somehow similar. In both wars Germany envied supremacy. Britain and France resented and US remained aloof but afterward she intervened as a savior. However, dissimilarities are more palpable. Italy and Japan were allied with Germany in second war. Russia didn't invade until Germans widened the sphere of battle. It was also more prolonged.After a lull, competitors dropped bombs, blindly.Civilians were killed, starved, and evacuated. Britain was Germany' arch-rival.It directed its resources towards war and both genders were obliged to do work.Nevertheless, war' savagery unified masses and undermined interests. But fighting became ubiquitous. Technological advancement materialized in the field of war and social-welfare. Surprisingly, a few soldiers died.Though trench warfare was not there but other forms, from mechanized to hand to hand jungle fighting were noticed.Although, rivals accumulated hazardous weapons but never deployed them.

The passage was little bit ambiguous for me please tell me whether I grasped its true meaning and presented it coherently or not. And is the title appropriate? And if I have missed any important point, kindly tell me.


As a kind of foot-note I should comment that there are those who doubt whether it is within the power of science to ensure over a prolonged period freedom from destitution and famine for mankind. The argument -is the old one of Maithus, that in the race between increasing population and increasing production, population must eventually win. Those of us who decline to accept this pessimistic view recognize the difficulty of the practical problem of meeting the needs of an ever-expanding population. We have, however, greater faith in human resourcefulness. We note that it is not only in the technology of production and medicine that the present generation differs so greatly from the one before. A similar rapid change is likewise occurring the thinking of masses of people. This change is brought about partly by experience with technology by more widespread education. Here lies a new realm in which dramatic advance is being made. The hope for the longer future lies in a growing understanding of the conditions for the good life of man in a world of science and technology, and the acceptance of a morality that is consistent with these conditions. With the widespread thought now being given to such problems by persons whose thinking is schooled to rely on reason and tested fact. It is evident that advance from this angle will also appear. Youth may, for example, consider the sere marks as an effort to see in inure perspective the type of ideals that are appropriate to the age of science. Many are those who are now sharing to this exploration of human values. The great question is whether such understanding of human goals and the corresponding development of morals can be achieved before the forces seen by Maithus, and emphasized so forcefully by recent writers, overwhelm the efforts of the pioneers in this new and critical field. I do not believe that this is inevitable. Jam confident of man’s ability to meet and solve this ethical problem that is so vital to the success of his effort to achieve physical and spiritual freedom. It is relevant that as I analyze the reasons for my faith in man’s eventual ability to meet this critical problem. I find that prominent in my mind is the confidence that God who made us holds for us an increasing density, to be achieved through our own efforts in the world setting that he supplies. This observation is significant in the present setting because it is my strong impression that most of those who have the firm faith in man’s advancement likewise have a religious basis for their faith. If this impression is valid its consequence is clear. It means that it is men and women of religious faith on whom we must primarily rely to work strongly toward achieving a favourable world society. It means also that those of religious faith because of their faith have a better chance of survival, a fact that has a bearing on the attitude that may be expected in the society of the future.

Original passage: 510 words
Précis: 145
TITLE: Religion’ Compatibility with Progress
Writer’ Notation is that some people are dubious about science’ capability to emancipate humanity from beggary. It’s popularly accepted that population will surpass resources. Although, optimistic individuals admit the quandary of demographic bulge but they also believe on man’ abilities. Evidently, contemporary generation differs from its predecessors not only because of technological advancement but also because of swift ideological changes. Another sphere, where men of intellect are working rationally and hence betterment is inevitable, is synchronization between ideal conditions for life with morality. But the query is whether the aforementioned consistency between goals and morality can be attained before the negative forces take control over all the achievements of pioneers in this field. The writer is hopeful because he credulously believes human strength to resolve ethical dilemmas and also relies on religious beliefs. Hence, people with strong conscience strive to build conducive society and subsequently increase their life expectancy rate.

Man is pie-eminently an animal good as gadgets. However, there is reason for doubting his good judgment in their utilization. Perhaps the first chemical process which man employed for his own service was combustion. First utilized to warm naked and chilled bodies, it was then discovered to be effective for scaring off nocturnal beasts of prey and an admirable agent for the preparation and preservation of food. Much later came the discovery that fire could be used in extracting and working metals and last of all that it could be employed to generate power. En ancient times man began to use fire as a weapon, beginning with incendiary torches and arrow and proceeding to explosives, which have been developed principally for the destruction of human beings and their works. In the control and utilization of gases, the achievements of our species have not been commendable. One might begin with air, which man breathes in common with other terrestrial vertebrates. He differs from other animals in that he seems incapable of selecting the right kind of air for breathing. Man is for ever doing things which foul the air and poisoning himself by his own stupidity. He pens himself up in a limited air space and suffocates, he manufactures noxious gases which accidentally or intentionally displace the air and remove him from the ranks of the living, he has been completely unable to filter the air of the disease germs, which he breathes to his detriment, he and all his works are powerless to prevent a hurricane or to withstand its force. Man has indeed been able to utilize the power of moving air currents to a limited extent and to imitate the flight of birds, with the certainty of eventually breaking his neck if he tries it. Man uses water much in the same way as other animals, ho has to drink it constantly, washes in it frequently, and drowns it occasionally — probably oftener than other terrestrial vertebrates. Without water, he dies as miserably as any other beast and with too much of it, as in floods, he is equally unable to cope. However, he excels other animals in that he has learned to utilize water power.
But it is rather man’s lack of judgment in the exercise of control of natural resources which would disgust critics of higher intelligence, although it would not surprise the apes. Man observes that the wood of trees is serviceable for constructing habitation and other buildings. He straightaway and recklessly denudes the earth of forests. in so far as he is able. He finds that the meat and skins of the bison are valuable and immediately goes to work to exterminate the bison. He allows his grazing animals to strip the turf from the soil so that it is blown away and fertile places become deserts. He clears for cultivation and exhausts the rich land by stupid planting. He goes into wholesale production of food, cereals, fruits and livestock and allows the fruits of his labour to rot or to starve because he has not provided any adequate method of distributing them or because no one can pay for them. He invents machines which do the work of many men, and is perplexed by the many men who are out of work. It would be hard to convince judges of human conduct that man is not an economic fool.

Original passage 565 words
Précis: 136 words
Title: Man’ limited judgmental faculty


Man is chiefly intelligent but his power to exploit this faculty is somehow dubious. Probably his first invention was fire which was sequentially employed for domestic, industrial, energy generation and for annihilation purposes. However, man’ efforts in gas utilization are not appreciable. He inhales hazardous and deteriorated air. He is incapable of filtering it or evading and defying hurricanes. Nevertheless, he has been able to deploy airflow. And just like animals he is also dependent on water. He has also learnt to generate hydro-power. But he is still incapable of tackling drought and flood. He mismanages resources because of his limited rational approach. His anti-nature activities lead to deforestation, extinction of specie, desertification, undue land consumption, and food wastage. Famine occurs due to incompetent distribution strategies or inflation. Evidently, anthropologists would doubt the frugality of man.

Good try. I think the length needs to be 1/3rd of the original passage. Length of the precis needs to be re-considered.

you are right I'll keep that point in mind