I have just started to attempt Precis writing and I want the help of the seniors to get me along the track.

Precis 1971

Passage.
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 he 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.

Title: The beauty of Poetry.

A poetry is a mere reflection of collective beings. A poet simply does not produce the thoughts of his own individual experience in his poetries but he decorates the ideas and happenings of contemporary masses collectively and in that essence finds his own role. Mostly the news from others become the sources and their sayings, the material but the articulation of the words in a rhymed and synchronized way is what differs a poetry from other ordinary piece of writings. Unlike Shakespeare, a political poet does not rely on imaginary past but uses present as his center of focus which, therefore, can be the solution of the political affairs but a poet does not feel comfortable with weighing one side of the story which does not concern the other half as it is against the very idea of poetry to outshine an individuals interests.






Précis. 1972

Passage.
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)

Title: Comparison of the world wars.

Germans' consideration for superior power against Great Britain and France and the failure to success both the times after the intervention of United States as a savior for the latter ones, are the commonalities in both the world wars. But severity of the second world war much bigger than its predecessor. The Russians, upon the attack on her allies, stood against the German. The scarcity of the food, the evacuation process and the massacre were huge loses to Britain but comparatively the second world war had fewer deaths of the troops than the former. People from either sides, in whatsoever field, were contributing to the war; be it a physicist or a biologist -unusual kinds of weapons were invented in the event of war in the defense of their respective countries.


Precis 2014.
Paragraph

Probably the only protection for contemporary man is to discover how to use his intelligence in the service of love and kindness. The training of human intelligence must include the simultaneous development of the empathic capacity. Only in this way can intelligence be made an instrument of social morality and responsibility — and thereby increase the chances of survival.

The need to produce human beings with trained morally sensitive intelligence is essentially a challenge to educators and educational institutions. Traditionally, the realm of social morality was left to religion and the churches as guardians or custodians. But their failure to fulfill this responsibility and their yielding to the seductive lures of the men of wealth and! pomp and power and documented by the history of the last two thousand years and have now resulted in the irrelevant “God Is Dead” theological rhetoric The more pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with the fundamental problems of social morality. For them simplistic Machiavellianism must remain the guiding principle of their decisions-power is morality, morality is power. This oversimplification increases the chances of nuclear devastation. We must therefore hope that educators and educational institutions have the capacity, the commitment and the time to instill moral sensitivity as an integral part of the complex pattern of function human intelligence. Some way must be found in the training of human beings to give them the assurance to love, the security to be kind. and the integrity required for a functional empathy.

Title: Empathy lies in loving other.

The only way, for humans, to live peace fully with social harmony is to use his caliber not in developing nuclear weapons but promoting love in the broader sense for humanity. The message of love and tolerance should therefore be encouraged and promoted in the very educational grooming of the individuals. The religions along with the principles of Nietzsche and Machiavelli had failed to spread the notion of love with their orthodox mentality, pessimistic approach of morality and intense politics, respectively. The only security of the mankind lies in compassion and loving one-another.

PS. I am a good learner. Just tell me the dos and the don'ts. Please.

I went through the last one - Am not an expert but still

The title is not befitting. Empathy already means 'understanding of another's feelings' - If it were a term the meaning of which we didnt know at all, we could define it that way, and your title would have made a little sense. Also, the focal point is not the term 'empathy', - They are 'intelligence' and 'social morality'. The title should be a mix of the two or something that conveys a synonymous meaning. I would choose something like "Social Morality and Intelligence" or "Intelligence and altruism" etc.

+ I liked your precis - except for that it contains the terms Nietzsche and Machiavelli - I dont think we need to mention them but only extract the information. That would help you achieve the 1/3rd length condition which in your case is a bit higher - 499 instead of 451. A difference of 48 words is enormous in my view.

Sir I did not catch your last sentence. Did you mean 48 characters?
I just divided the total number of words in the original passage by 3, which in this case is 84 and I wrote a precis of 93.

One more thing, One should not, in any situation, use names from the original passage.??????

__________________
Whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger.....

Seniors please dissect it.

Precis 1975
Passage.

Above all, a sense of what is possible. In politics it is useless to formulate great and noble projects if, due to the existing state of the country, they cannot be accomplished. The impulses of a free people are at all times a parallelogram of forces. The great statesman realizes precisely what these forces are and says to himself without ever being seriously mistaken: "I can go just so far and no farther.” He does not allow himself to favour one class, foreseeing the inevitable reactions of the neglected groups. A prudent doctor does not cure his patient of a passing complaint with a remedy that produces a permanent disease of the liver, and a judicious statesman neither appeases the working class at the risk of angering the bourgeoisie, nor does he indulge the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. He endeavours to regard the nation as a great living body whose organs are interdependent. He takes the temperature of public opinion every day, and if the fever increases he sees to it that the country rests. Though he may fully appreciate the power of public opinion, a forceful and clever statesman realizes that he can influence it fairly easily. He has calculated the people’s power to remain indifferent to his efforts, they have their moment of violence, and their angry protests are legitimate if the Government brings poverty on them, takes away their traditional liberty, or seriously interferes with their home life. But they will allow themselves to be led by a man who knows where he is going and who shows them clearly that he has the nation’s interest at heart and that they may have confidence in him. The sense of what is possible is not only the ability to recognize that certain things are impossible — a negative virtue — but also to know that, a- courageous man, things which appear to be very difficult are in fact possible. A great statesman does not say to himself: “This nation is weak”, but “This nation is asleep: I shall wake it up. Laws and institutions are of the people’s making, if necessary, I shall -change them.” But above all, the determination to do something must be followed by acts, not merely words. Mediocre politicians spend most of their time devising schemes and preaching doctrines. They talk of structural reforms, they invent faultless social systems and formulate plans for perpetual peace. In his public speeches the true statesman knows how, if necessary, to make polite bows to new theories and to pronounce ritualistic phrases for the benefit of those who guard temple gates, but he actually occupies himself by taking care of the real needs of the nation. He endeavours to accomplish definite and precise objectives in ways that seem best to him. If he finds obstacles in his path, he makes detours. Vanity, intellectual pride, and a feeling for system are serious handicaps to the politician. Some party leaders are ready to sacrifice the country for a theory or a set of principles. The true leader says: “Let the principles go but I must save the nation.

Title: The quality of a great statesman.

A country cannot progress if the current situation of the country is not favorable and a wise political leader knows it very well. He does not favor ones interest while compromising others and so do the professionals in their respected fields. They ensure equilibrium in their duties keeping in view of everyone's legitimate interest. A shrewd politician always keeps the check and balance of the public behavior, looks into their rightful protests against the government and knows very well how to persuade and calm them. A great leader never gives up on his nation, he is never pessimistic and he promises, every time, for the uplift of the nation. An average political head focuses on the interests of the few, emphasizes on structural reforms and promotes the dogmas of the supporting groups but on the contrary, A great statesman is a modest man and the strengthening of the nation is his first priority even at the expense of the laws and regulations.

__________________
Whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger.....

Names can be used if the whole passage revolves around those names.. If names are used just to clarify something, its better to use the message instead of the names. In this passage, stress is not on the names but on the message.

please have a look at the last one...

__________________
Whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger.....

We ll discuss the precis later- I gave it a cursory look and thought that i change the title - I am an engineer and am very new to this precis thing. Please do not take my comments very seriously. I appreciate exchanging views and I like learning that way

Back to the title - Yours is a good one no doubt, but we can make it even better i guess

Yes the passage is about qualities of a great statesman, BUT the very first sentence tells you that its just one quality that is above all - Its PRAGMATISM or REALISM (or sisters/brothers of these terms) - The sense to know if something is possible i.e. not being whimsical. We can safely insert this information in the title, right away telling the examiner that 'I ve understood the precis'. So the title, in my humble view point, should go like "Pragmatism and the great statesman", or "Realism - quality of a great statesman" or some offspring of these captions.

And i read the first line of your precis - You ve wasted the first line talking about progress of a country - I think its more about politics, statesmanship and practicality.

Please let me know what you think of my response. I reply for the mere sake of learning from others and of expressing my view point.

Rest of the precis is fine,and you can make it more precise by practicing...i just showed you the road map,that how it can be made more precise and relevant.
ITs just my view which i have made by practicing ,i am not an expert of precis..Best of luck

__________________
A fool says what he knows,and a wise man knows what he says.

#rosnain, thanks for your effort and you may be right about the very first sentence because I am just a newbie in precis.

And #zeeshan Bro, I will keep that things in mind and my next precis, inshallah, would be as precise and relevant as it can be.

__________________
Whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger.....

Precis 1980.

Passage:

The attention we give to terrorism often seems disproportionate to its real importance. Terrorism incidents make superb copy for journalists, but kill and main fewer people than road accidents. Nor is terrorism politically effective. Empires rise and fall according to the real determinants of politics — namely overwhelming force or strong popular support-not according to a bit of mayhem caused by isolated fanatics whom one would take seriously enough to vote for it. Indeed, the very variety of incidents that might be described as “terrorism” has been such as to lead critics to suggest that no single subject for investigation exists at all. Might we not regard terrorism as a kind of minor blotch on the skin of an industrial civilization whose very heart is filled with violent dreams and aspirations. Who would call in the dermatologist when the heart itself is sick?
But popular opinion takes terrorism very serious indeed and popular opinion is probably right. For the significance of terrorism lies not only in the grotesque nastiness of terrorist outrages but also in the moral claims they imply. Terrorism is the most dramatic exemplification of the moral fault of blind willfulness. Terrorism is a solipsistic denial of the obligation of self-control we all must recognize when we live in civilized communities. Certainly the sovereign high road to misunderstanding terrorism is the pseudo scientific project of attempting to discover its causes. Terrorists themselves talk of the frustrations which have supposedly necessitated their actions but to transform these facile justifications into scientific hypotheses is to succumb to the terrorists own fantasies. To kill and main people is a choice people make, and glib invocations of necessity are baseless. Other people living in the same situation see no such necessity at all. Hence there are no “causes” of terrorism, only decision to terrorize. It is a moral phenomenon and only a moral discussion can be adequate to it.

Title:
Terrorism: A self-proclaimed force of ethical values rather than a necessity issue.

The severity of the terrorism should be understood in its proper sense that it is, therefore, a mental grooming of a person other than the excuses about necessities for carrying out attacks and killing certain peoples. The Blind faith of rigidness, the height of angriness and their self-claimed ethnocentric values are the factors that leads to terrorizing acts. Keeping in view of the admittance of such motives, it is useless to chalk out the scientific causes behind every terrorist attack as it is followed by one's moral values and can only be resolved by a rational bargain over humanity.

__________________
Whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger.....