Archetypal Patterns in Poetry

Archetypal Patterns in Poetry

Archetypal literary criticism’s origins are rooted in two other academic disciplines, social anthropology and psychoanalysis; each contributed to the literary criticism in separate ways, with the latter being a sub-branch of the critical theory. Archetypal criticism was at its most popular in the 1940s and 1950s, largely due to the work of Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye. Though archetypal literary criticism is no longer widely practiced, nor have there been any major developments in the field, it still has a place in the tradition of literary studies.

Frazer

The anthropological origins of archetypal criticism can pre-date its analytical psychology origins by over thirty years. The Golden Bough (1890–1915), written by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer, was the first influential text dealing with cultural mythologies. Frazer was part of a group of comparative anthropologists working out of Cambridge University who worked extensively on the topic. The Golden Bough was widely accepted as the seminal text on myth that spawned numerous studies on the same subject. Eventually, the momentum of Frazer’s work carried over into literary studies.

In The Golden Bough Frazer identifies with shared practices and mythological beliefs between primitive religions and modern religions. Frazer argues that the death-rebirth myth is present in almost all cultural mythologies, and is acted out in terms of growing seasons and vegetation. The myth is symbolized by the death (i.e. final harvest) and rebirth (i.e. spring) of the god of vegetation. As an example, Frazer cites the Greek myth of Persephone, who was taken to the Underworld by Hades. Her mother Demeter, the goddess of the harvest, was so sad that she struck the world with fall and winter. While in the underworld Persephone ate 6 of the 12 pomegranate seeds given to her by Hades. Because of what she ate, she was forced to spend half the year, from then on, in the underworld, representative of autumn and winter, or the death in the death-rebirth myth. The other half of the year Persephone was permitted to be in the mortal realm with Demeter, which represents spring and summer, or the rebirth in the death-rebirth myth.

Jung

While Frazer’s work deals with mythology and archetypes in material terms, the work of Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss born founder of analytical psychology, is, in contrast, immaterial in its focus. Jung’s work theorizes about myths and archetypes in relation to the unconscious, an inaccessible part of the mind. From a Jungian perspective, myths are the “culturally elaborated representations of the contents of the deepest recess of the human psyche: the world of the archetypes”.

Jungian analytical psychology distinguishes between the personal and collective unconscious, the latter being particularly relevant to archetypal criticism. The collective unconscious, or the objective psyche as it is less frequently known, is a number of innate thoughts, feelings, instincts, and memories that reside in the unconsciousness of all people. Jung’s definition of the term is inconsistent in his many writings. At one time he calls the collective unconscious the “a priori, inborn forms of intuition,” while in another instance it is a series of “experience(s) that come upon us like fate”. Regardless of the many nuances between Jung’s definitions, the collective unconsciousness is a shared part of the unconscious.

To Jung, an archetype in the collective unconscious, as quoted from Leitch et al., is “irrepresentable, but has effects which make visualizations of it possible, namely, the archetypal images and ideas” (988), due to the fact they are at an inaccessible part of the mind. The archetypes to which Jung refers are represented through primordial images, a term he coined. Primordial images originate from the initial stages of humanity and have been part of the collective unconscious ever since. It is through primordial images that universal archetypes are experienced, and more importantly, that the unconscious is revealed.

With the same death-rebirth myth that Frazer sees as being representative of the growing seasons and agriculture as a point of comparison, a Jungian analysis envisions the death-rebirth archetype as a “symbolic expression of a process taking place not in the world but in the mind. That process is the return of the ego to the unconscious—a kind of temporary death of the ego—and its re-emergence, or rebirth, from the unconscious”.

By itself, Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious accounts for a considerable share of writings in archetypal literary criticism; it also pre-dates the height of archetypal literary criticism by over a decade. The Jungian archetypal approach treats literary texts as an avenue in which primordial images are represented. It would not be until the 1950s when the other branch of archetypal literary criticism developed.

FRYE

Bodkin’s Archetypal Patterns in Poetry, the first work on the subject of archetypal literary criticism, applies Jung’s theories about the collective unconscious, archetypes, and primordial images to literature. It was not until the work of the Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye that archetypal criticism was theorized in purely literary terms. The major work of Frye’s to deal with archetypes is Anatomy of Criticism but his essay “The Archetypes of Literature” is a precursor to the book. Frye’s thesis in “The Archetypes of Literature” remains largely unchanged in Anatomy of Criticism. Frye’s work helped displace New Criticism as the major mode of analyzing literary texts, before giving way to structuralism and semiotics.

Frye’s work breaks from both Frazer and Jung in such a way that it is distinct from its anthropological and psychoanalytical precursors. For Frye, the death-rebirth myth that Frazer sees manifest in agriculture and the harvest is not ritualistic since it is involuntary, and therefore, must be done. As for Jung, Frye was uninterested about the collective unconscious on the grounds of feeling it was unnecessary: since the unconscious is unknowable it cannot be studied. How archetypes came to be was also of no concern to Frye; rather, the function and effect of archetypes is his interest. For Frye, literary archetypes “play an essential role in refashioning the material universe into an alternative verbal universe that is humanly intelligible and viable, because it is adapted to essential human needs and concerns”.

There are two basic categories in Frye’s framework, comedic and tragic. Each category is further subdivided into two categories: comedy and romance for the comedic; tragedy and satire (or ironic) for the tragic. Though he is dismissive of Frazer, Frye uses the seasons in his archetypal schema. Each season is aligned with a literary genre: comedy with spring, romance with summer, tragedy with autumn, and satire with winter.

Comedy is aligned with spring because the genre of comedy is characterized by the birth of the hero, revival and resurrection. Also, spring symbolizes the defeat of winter and darkness. Romance and summer are paired together because summer is the culmination of life in the seasonal calendar, and the romance genre culminates with some sort of triumph, usually a marriage. Autumn is the dying stage of the seasonal calendar, which parallels the tragedy genre because it is, above all, known for the “fall” or demise of the protagonist. Satire is metonymized with winter on the grounds that satire is a “dark” genre; satire is a disillusioned and mocking form of the three other genres. It is noted for its darkness, dissolution, the return of chaos, and the defeat of the heroic figure.

The context of a genre determines how a symbol or image is to be interpreted. Frye outlines five different spheres in his schema: human, animal, vegetation, mineral, and water. The comedic human world is representative of wish-fulfillment and being community centred. In contrast, the tragic human world is of isolation, tyranny, and the fallen hero. Animals in the comedic genres are docile and pastoral (e.g. sheep), while animals are predatory and hunters in the tragic (e.g. wolves). For the realm of vegetation, the comedic is, again, pastoral but also represented by gardens, parks, roses and lotuses. As for the tragic, vegetation is of a wild forest, or as being barren. Cities, a temple, or precious stones represent the comedic mineral realm. The tragic mineral realm is noted for being a desert, ruins, or “of sinister geometrical images”. Lastly, the water realm is represented by rivers in the comedic. With the tragic, the seas, and especially floods, signify the water sphere.

Frye admits that his schema in “The Archetypes of Literature” is simplistic, but makes room for exceptions by noting that there are neutral archetypes. The example he cites are islands such as Circe’s or Prospero’s which cannot be categorized under the tragic or comedic.

THEORY CRITIQUES

It has been argued that Frye’s version of archetypal criticism strictly categorizes works based on their genres, which determines how an archetype is to be interpreted in a text. According to this argument the dilemma Frye’s archetypal criticism faces with more contemporary literature, and that of post-modernism in general, is that genres and categories are no longer distinctly separate and that the very concept of genres has become blurred, thus problematical Frye’s schema. For instance Beckett’s Waiting For Godot is considered a tragicomedy, a play with elements of tragedy and satire, with the implication that interpreting textual elements in the play becomes difficult as the two opposing seasons and conventions that Frye associated with genres are pitted against each other. But in fact arguments about generic blends such as tragicomedy go back to the Renaissance, and Frye always conceived of genres as fluid. Frye thought literary forms were part of a great circle and were capable of shading into other generic forms. (He contemplated including a diagram of his wheel in Anatomy of Criticism but thought better of it.)

EXAMPLES OF ARCHETYPES IN LITERATURE

Femme Fatale: A female character type who brings upon catastrophic and disastrous events. Eve from the story of Genesis or Pandora from Greek mythology are two such figures.

The Journey: A narrative archetype where the protagonist must overcome a series of obstacles before reaching his or her goal. The quintessential journey archetype in Western culture is arguably Homer’s Odyssey.

Archetypal symbols vary more than archetype narratives or character types. The best archetypal pattern is any symbol with deep roots in a culture's mythology, such as the forbidden fruit in Genesis or even the poison apple in Snow White. These are examples of symbols that resonate with archetypal critics.

A Classic - Defining the Term or the Concept of Classics in Literature

The definition of a "classic" can be a hotly debated topic. Depending on what you read, or the experience of the person you question on the topic, you may receive a wide range of answers. So, what is a "classic"--in the context of books and literature?

• A classic usually expresses some artistic quality--an expression of life, truth, and beauty.

• A classic stands the test of time. The work is usually considered to be a representation of the period in which it was written; and the work merits lasting recognition. In other words, if the book was published in the recent past, the work is not a classic.

• A classic has a certain universal appeal. Great works of literature touch us to our very core beings--partly because they integrate themes that are understood by readers from a wide range of backgrounds and levels of experience. Themes of love, hate, death, life, and faith touch upon some of our most basic emotional responses.

• A classic makes connections. You can study a classic and discover influences from other writers and other great works of literature. Of course, this is partly related to the universal appeal of a classic. But, the classic also is informed by the history of ideas and literature--whether unconsciously or specifically worked into the plot of the text.

So, now we have some background as to how a classic is defined. But, what about the book you are reading? Is it a classic?

(Collection)

Anil S Awad

English NET/SET Consultant

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com

Marxism and Marxist Criticism

Marxism and Marxist Criticism

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was primarily a theorist and historian (less the evil pinko commie demon that McCarthyism fretted about). After examining social organization in a scientific way (thereby creating a methodology for social science: political science), he perceived human history to have consisted of a series of struggles between classes--between the oppressed and the oppressing. Whereas Freud saw "sexual energy" to be the motivating factor behind human endeavor and Nabokov seemed to feel artistic impulse was the real factor, Marx thought that "historical materialism" was the ultimate driving force, a notion involving the distribution of resources, gain, production, and such matters.

The supposedly "natural" political evolution involved (and would in the future involve) "feudalism" leading to "bourgeois capitalism" leading to "socialism" and finally to "utopian communism." In bourgeois capitalism, the privileged bourgeoisie rely on the proletariat--the labor force responsible for survival. Marx theorized that when profits are not reinvested in the workers but in creating more factories, the workers will grow poorer and poorer until no short-term patching is possible or successful. At a crisis point, revolt will lead to a restructuring of the system.

For a political system to be considered communist, the underclasses must own the means of production--not the government nor the police force. Therefore, aside from certain first-century Christian communities and other temporary communes, communism has not yet really existed. (The Soviet Union was actually state-run capitalism.)

Marx is known also for saying that "Religion is the opiate of the people," so he was somewhat aware of the problem that Lenin later dwelt on. Lenin was convinced that workers remain largely unaware of their own oppression since they are convinced by the state to be selfless. One might point to many "opiates of the people" under most political systems--diversions that prevent real consideration of trying to change unjust economic conditions.

According to Marxists, and to other scholars in fact, literature reflects those social institutions out of which it emerges and is itself a social institution with a particular ideological function. Literature reflects class struggle and materialism: think how often the quest for wealth traditionally defines characters. So Marxists generally view literature "not as works created in accordance with timeless artistic criteria, but as 'products' of the economic and ideological determinants specific to that era" (Abrams 149). Literature reflects an author's own class or analysis of class relations, however piercing or shallow that analysis may be.

The Marxist critic simply is a careful reader or viewer who keeps in mind issues of power and money, and any of the following kinds of questions:

·                     What role does class play in the work; what is the author's analysis of class relations?

·                     How do characters overcome oppression?

·                     In what ways does the work serve as propaganda for the status quo; or does it try to undermine it?

·                     What does the work say about oppression; or are social conflicts ignored or blamed elsewhere?

·                     Does the work propose some form of utopian vision as a solution to the problems encountered in the work?

Feminist Approach to Literary Criticism

Feminist Approach to Literary Criticism

Feminist literary criticism is the critical analysis of literary works based on the feminist perspective. In particular, feminist literary critics tend to reject the patriarchal norms of literature "that privileges masculine ways of thinking/points of view and marginalizes women politically, economically and psychologically," according to Paul Ady, associate professor of English at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts. Instead, feminist critics approach literature in a way that empowers the female point-of-view instead, typically rejecting the patriarchal language that has dominated literature.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE MOVEMENT

Modern feminist literary criticism had its roots in the post-World War II feminist movement that spilled over into the intellectual circles of America's colleges and universities. The true origins of the movement can be traced as far back as the late 18th century with Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" (1792). Other writers such as John Stuart Mill, Margaret Fuller and Simone de Beauvoir followed suit from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. From the 1960s onward, feminist literary critics proliferated. The approaches of feminist literary critics vary according to the personal interests of each writer. In fact, as Timothy H. Scherman, associate professor of English at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago has noted, "there are no 'rules'-no 'recipe'-¬to doing feminist criticism."

CHALLENGES TO THE LITERARY CANON

One major approach to feminist literary criticism revolves around the desire to challenge or redefine the literary canon that has been dominated by men. In particular, as Scherman again notes, "feminist criticism makes space for and listens to women's voices previously muted or drowned out by dominant patriarchal literary-critical practices." In this sense, feminist literary criticism takes a particular stand against what the academic community has considered to be the norm for what it considers to be "literature." This critique of traditional scholarship is an approach that rejects traditional norms on the assumption that traditional literary analysis has a political and ethical agenda biased against women. For this reason, writers like Josephine Donovan hope to recapture the radical basis for feminist literary criticism by reinvigorating it with both the political and ethical components inherent in the inception of the movement. By exploring previously ignored writers and studying the women's literary tradition, critics hope to unveil previously held assumptions that marginalize the place of women in society.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Another popular approach to feminist literary criticism is to examine closely what the text says, or as the case may be, does not say. In other words, what the text leaves out says much about the writer, literature in general, and society as a whole. By using this "hermeneutics of suspicion" literary critics hope to reveal how women are marginalized in the language of literature, according to Ady. In some ways, this approach to literary criticism assumes that there is an unconscious transference of previously held assumptions to the text through the act of writing. What is written reveals what society believes. Influenced by the rise of post-modernism, feminist literary critics believe that the act of writing is not neutral, instead it is influenced by the values of the writer who then transfers those values to the text, often unintentionally. By understanding these values, feminist literary critics hope to reveal these subconscious ideas to show how women have been marginalized in literature.

(Collection)

Anil S Awad

English NET/SET Consultant

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com

Astrophel and Stella - Philip Sidney (1554-1586)

Astrophel and Stella - Philip Sidney (1554-1586)

Sir Philip Sidney was born on November 30, 1554, to Sir Henry Sidney and Lady Mary Dudley. His mother was the daughter of John Dudley, the 1st Duke of Northumberland, and the sister of Robert Dudley, the 1st Earl of Leicester. Sidney was named after his godfather, King Philip II of Spain. He attended the Shrewsbury School beginning in 1564 at the age of ten. There he met his longtime best friend and future biographer, Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke. From 1568 to 1571, Sidney studied at Christ Church, Oxford, but he left without taking a degree in order to travel the continent and complete his education in that alternative way. He traveled through France (narrowly escaping the horrors of the Saint Bartholomew Massacre in Paris), Germany, Italy, and Austria.

Upon his return to England on May 31, 1575, Sidney took on the position of a popular and highly respected courtier. At this point, Sidney first made the acquaintance of Penelope Devereux, the eldest daughter of Lord Essex-a girl of only twelve years old. Lord Essex greatly desired a marriage between Sidney and Lady Penelope and, on his deathbed in 1576, allegedly proclaimed of Sidney, "Oh that good gentleman, have me commended unto him. And tell him I sent him nothing, but I wish him well-so well, that if God do move their hearts, I wish that he might match with my daughter. I call him son-he so wise, virtuous, and godly." In 1576, in the midst of his early courtship with Penelope, Sidney first began writing his famous sonnet sequence, Astrophel and Stella (now spelled as Astrophil and Stella).

In 1577, Sidney was sent as ambassador to the German Emperor and the Prince of Orange. Officially he was to console the princes on the death of their father, and unofficially he was to explore the possibility of creating a Protestant league. In 1579, the projected marriage of Queen Elizabeth to the Duke of Anjou-the Roman Catholic heir to the French throne-roused Sidney to take action. He wrote an extremely bold letter to the Queen expressing his opposition to the match and, as a result, swiftly became the object of her severe displeasure. Retiring from court to avoid the Queen's wrath, Sidney spent several months living on the estate of his sister, Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, and writing the pastoral romance Arcadia.

With the marriage of his wealthy uncle, the Earl of Leicester, in 1578 and the following birth of a cousin, Sidney's fortunes swiftly changed. As the nephew and heir to the childless and unmarried Earl of Leicester, Sidney could be matched in marriage to the wealthiest woman in England. But simply as Sir Henry Sidney's son, without the prospective fortune of his uncle, Sidney was nothing more than a poor gentleman. This change in fortunes ensured that Sidney would no longer be an appropriate match for Penelope Devereux, despite the dying wishes of her father.

In 1581, Penelope was married to Lord Rich. Although she did not indicate any affection for Sidney before her wedding, her marriage to Lord Rich was recognized as unhappy. According to a letter written by the Earl of Devonshire to James I, Penelope never accepted Lord Rich as a husband but, "being in the power of her friends, she was by them married against her will unto one against whom she did protest at the very solemnity and ever after," who instead of being her "comforter did strive in all things to torment her," and with whom she lived in "continual discord."

In 1583 Sidney was knighted, and soon afterward, he married Frances, the daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham. In 1584, he took up a position in Parliament. A year later, he was appointed to the Governorship of Flushing in the Netherlands. On September 22, 1586, Sidney led a military body of two hundred English horsemen on an attack against a Spanish convoy on its way to the town of Zutphen. According to legend, as he was leaving the camp, Sidney met the camp's marshal, Sir William Pelham, wearing only light armor, and in an effort to emulate this nobility, Sidney threw aside his own armor and rode into battle unprotected. This anecdote was meant to emphasize Sidney's courage and similarity to the knight-errants in Arthurian legend. During the battle, Sidney's thighbone was shattered by a musket shot, and he died twenty-two days later. He was not yet thirty-two years old.

While lying injured, Sidney allegedly gave his water bottle to another wounded soldier, declaring, "Thy need is greater than mine." This demonstration of self-sacrifice and nobility made this episode one of the most famous stories about Sir Philip Sidney. As English bibliographer Alfred W. Pollard (1859-1944) remarks, "the story of Philip Sidney and the cup of cold water [is] among the best known anecdotes in English history."

Sidney's body was interred in St. Paul's Cathedral on February 16, 1587. His death was the cause of much mourning in England, with the Queen and her subjects grieving for the man who was the consummate courtier.

Astrophel and Stella

The title page of the 1591 edition of Astrophel and Stella

Likely composed in the 1580s, Philip Sidney's Astrophil and Stella is an English sonnet sequence containing 108 sonnets and 11 songs. The name derives from the two Greek words, 'aster' (star) and 'phil' (lover), and the Latin word 'stella' meaning star. Thus Astrophil is the star lover, and Stella is his star. Sidney partly nativized the key features of his Italian model Petrarch, including an ongoing but partly obscure narrative, the philosophical trappings of the poet in relation to love and desire, and musings on the art of poetic creation. Sidney also adopts the Petrarchan rhyme scheme, though he uses it with such freedom that fifteen variants are employed.

Some have suggested that the love represented within the sequence may be a literal one as Sidney evidently connects Astrophil to himself and Stella toPenelope Rich, the wife of a courtier, Robert Rich, 3rd Baronet. Payne and Hunter suggest that modern criticism, though not explicitly rejecting this connection, leans more towards the viewpoint that writers happily create a poetic persona, artificial and distinct from themselves.

Publishing History

Many of the poems were circulated in manuscript form before the first edition was printed by Thomas Newman in 1591, five years after Sidney's death. This edition included ten of Sidney's songs, a preface by Thomas Nashe and verses from other poets including Thomas Campion, Samuel Daniel and the Earl of Oxford. The text was allegedly copied down by a man in the employ of one of Sidney's associates, thus it was full of errors and misreadings that eventually led to Sidney's friends ensuring that the unsold copies were impounded. Newman printed a second version later in the year, and though the text was more accurate it was still flawed. The version of Astrophil and Stella commonly used is found in the folio of the 1598 version of Sidney's Arcadia. Though still not completely free from error, this was prepared under the supervision of his sister the Countess of Pembroke and is considered the most authoritative text available. All known versions of Astrophil and Stella have the poems in the same order, making it almost certain that Sidney determined their sequence.

Astrophel vs. Astrophil

The Oxford University Press collection of Sidney's major works has this to say about the title:

There is no evidence that the title is authorial. It derives from the first printed text, the unauthorized quarto edition published by Thomas Newman (1591). Newman may also have been responsible for the consistent practice in early printings of calling the lover persona 'Astrophel'. Ringler emended to 'Astrophil' on the grounds of etymological correctness, since the name is presumably based on Greek aster philein, and means 'lover of a star' (with stella meaning 'star'); the 'phil' element alluding also, no doubt, to Sidney's Christian name.

Selected sonnets

Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show,

That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain:

Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know,

Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain,

I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe,

Studying inventions fine, her wits to entertain:

Oft turning others' leaves, to see if thence would flow

Some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sun-burned brain.

But words came halting forth, wanting Invention's stay,

Invention, Nature's child, fled step-dame Study's blows,

And others' feet still seemed but strangers in my way.

Thus great with child to speak, and helpless in my throes,

Biting my truant pen, beating myself for spite,

'Fool' said my Muse to me, 'look in thy heart and write.'

Loving, and wishing to show my love in verse, So that Stella might find pleasure in my pain, So that pleasure might make her read, and reading make her know me, And knowledge might win pity for me, and pity might obtain grace, I looked for fitting words to depict the darkest face of sadness, Studying clever creations in order to entertain her mind, Often turning others’ pages to see if, from them, Fresh and fruitful ideas would flow into my brain. But words came out lamely, lacking the support of Imagination: Imagination, nature’s child, fled the blows of Study, her stepmother: And the writings (‘feet’) of others seemed only alien things in the way. So while pregnant with the desire to speak, helpless with the birth pangs, Biting at my pen which disobeyed me, beating myself in anger, My Muse said to me ‘Fool, look in your heart and write.’

With how sad steps, oh Moon, thou climb’st the skies,

How silently, and with how wan a face.

What, may it be, that even in heav’nly place

That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?

Sure, if that long with Love acquainted eyes

Can judge of Love, thou feel’st a lover’s case;

I read it in thy looks; thy languish’d grace

To me that feel the like, thy state descries.

Then ev’n of fellowship, oh Moon, tell me

Is constant love deem’d there but want of wit?

Are beauties there as proud as here thy be?

Do they above love to be lov’d, and yet

Those lovers scorn whom that Love doth possess?

Do they call virtue there ungratefulness?

Do they call their ungratefulness (unwillingness to please) virtue also?

With what sad steps O Moon you climb the skies, How silently and with how pale a face: What, can it be that even in a heavenly place That busy archer (Cupid) tries out his sharp arrows? Surely, if eyes that are long acquainted with love Can make judgments about it, you feel for lovers: I read it in your looks: your languished grace Reveals your state to me who feel similarly.

Therefore out of fellowship, O Moon, tell me,Is constancy in love deemed up there also to be lack of wit?Are beauties there as proud as they are here?

Do those above love to be loved, and yet Scorn the lovers who are possessed by that love? Do they call their ungratefulness (unwillingness to please) virtue also?

(Collection)

Anil S Awad

English NET/SET Consultant

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com