LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. TASTE FOR LITERATURE

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

TASTE FOR LITERATURE

How do we acquire taste for literature?

Some are born with such a taste, as in every case of some special talent or inclination  for something, like music, painting,sports.Some may acquire it through the example of others in the family or peers. However, since all of us go through schooling, most of us are influenced by what we read in our text-books and other prescribed material. But in most cases of life-long fascination with literature, it is some good teacher who plants this love for good literature in the tender heart. And there will always be some who won't like literature!

It is also greatly influenced by the general cultural atmosphere prevailing in the society . Before the invention of printing, books were copied down from hand to hand and study was confined to a select few.That is how in the olden days we have palm leaf manuscripts. Literacy was not widespread, but it was no bar to learning: there were itinerant scholars, sadhus,professional story-tellers etc who went from place to place giving discourses; so most people were aware of the contents of our itihasa-puranas, even in villages. Ramcharitmanas used to be read publicly by a pundit, and people sitting around would write down the verses as they were recited. This happened at the time of Akbar. I do not know whether there were any parallels in Tamil Nad. What I mean is that learning was not dependent on literacy and literacy does not necessarily lead to learning.

From English cultural history, we learn that the most important development that gave a great push to reading literature was the invention of printing and the publication of books in greater numbers. There were two other developments:  the gradual extension of public schooling and the appearance of circulating libraries. This was followed by the rise of periodical magazines, and coverage of literary matters in newspapers . The growing schooling led to rise in general literacy, and people lapped up all forms of literature. Even poetry was published in magazines and newspapers, before they were published in books. The stories of the greatest English novelists Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy first appeared as serials  in magazines. 

This development was intimately connected with the socio-economic developments and movements. The novels of Dickens dealt with social problems like child labour, unhealthy working conditions, etc prevailing then in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. On the one hand, the novels portrayed what was happening; on the other, this very portrayal led to arouse public conscience and public opinion in favour of reforms! Thus in a sense, Dickens achieved through his novels what Karl Marx was attempting to do through revolution! Thomas Hardy was less fortunate. His novels dealt with the more fundamental human condition- problems of fate and free will, love and marriage, marital problems, disruption of rural life due to industrial system and consequent displacement of families, etc. But above all, he dealt with some deep psychological aspects of human relationships, especially relating to love and marriage.And there was  an overall sense of human helplessness in the face of fate. One of his most famous novels records in the last paragraph: "the President of the Immortals had ended his sport with Tess" (when the heroine was condemned to be hanged!) The public judged him to be pessimistic, the critics were against him.The criticism was so severe after one novel that he gave up writing novels altogether, and took to poetry!

I value both Dickens and Hardy. But today, novels of Dickens have lost their social relevance, though they retain their artistic and literary charm and historical value. But the issues raised by Hardy are even more relevant today; Victorian England did not dare to discuss the issues openly;today they are beyond all discussion: the problems are so severe, there is not even an attempt at solutions! Hardy will continue to be relevant so long as man ponders his place in the world, and has to deal with emotions of the heart!

We can see the parallels in the Tamil literary field. In the 30s and 40s of the last century , periodical magazines became the purveyors of popular literature and also shapers of public taste. We had some of our greatest writers around that time, till may be up to the early 60s. In the beginning , the Independence movement had given the impetus for sparkling new literature: Bharati and Namakkal Ramalingam Pillai in poetry; Thiru.Vi.Ka for socially relevant commentary and criticism;T.K.C and Ki.Va.Ja for sheer literary exposition. Kalki and Devan opened a new era in both periodical serial writing and novels. Kalki wrote historical novels which have set an all-time standard. His Tyagabhumi is also a social novel which captures the mood of the freedom movement. His comments on public affairs and music constitute a different genre. Devan on the other hand wrote brilliant social novels with deep import and subtle humour. But he has remained an unsung hero.I wonder how many people today will even be able to understand his writing- general level of education has become so shallow, and sensitivities so blunted. 

The leading Tamil periodicals of that era discovered a galaxy of brilliant talent and promoted literature of some standard. Three magazines come to mind: Ananda Vikatan, Kalaimagal and Kalki. They were pioneers  (people speak of Manikkodi, I have no personal knowledge) but Kalaimagal must rank at the top for sheer literary excellence under KI.Va.Ja as editor. But they have all declined now ( I mean in literary standard, not necessarily circulation)

This is where social conditions dictate literary taste.With the rise of the Dravidian parties, values have changed. Cinema and politics have become the preoccupation of society as a whole. We talk of TV but that too is dependent on cinema and politics! What are the serials, except another format of cinema? Everything else is on the periphery. This leads us to the larger question of just what is literature!

In the olden days, any piece of writing was considered literature, whatever the subject or even quality. However, it was mostly in the form of verse and demanded minimum competence. Even the prose works demanded some quality, since the readership was confined to learned people. It thus meant any work on philosophy, history or arts or any subject meant for a general audience. However, with the spread of general literacy and readership since the 18th century, it came to mean mainly works of fiction and poetry, though there were great literary forms like the essay on serious subjects. In a general sense we may say that any good writing on any subject can be considered literature. The dialogues of Plato, the economic writings of Keynes, the writings of William James on psychology and sociology, historical writings of Gibbon, etc can be considered literature, no less than Boswell's life of Johnson, or Johnson's own writings on the poets or prefaces to Shakespeare or his literary criticism! Even some of the works on political theory like those of Harold Laski or Ernest Barker  or Ivor Jennings would qualify as literature, regardless of whether we agree with their views. The writings of Marx, Freud and Jung would also qualify on that basis. There is something besides the subject matter which makes a work  a piece of literature.

In the Western tradition, there is a concept called "classical". Originally for them classical literature meant the works of the ancient Greek and Roman writers, from whom they reckon the rise of their civilisation.There is an enduring quality about the works- they raised fundamental questions about life, meaning of existence, recorded the lives and achievements of old heroes- they set standards of life and belief. Over the centuries, the general public has come far away from reading them, but western society still respects them and considerable numbers of their youngsters study them in the universities. The works of  learned authors still carry allusions to the old Greek history and legends and mythology.They may not believe the stories, but names like Achilles, Sisyphus and Pandora carry lot of psychological significance for them! Knowledge of classical literature is a mark of culture.

Closely following this is the idea of a "canon". It refers to a corpus of literary works  which any educated person should be acquainted with  and read. Generally, these have to do with the cultural -development of their society, not just language and literature. One need  not subscribe to the views advocated by them but they should be known. Thus Shakespeare is universally admired. Milton's greatest work is an exposition of the story of the fall of Adam and Eve- which most educated westerners do not believe in, but it is still part of the canon! The canon is not a boundary fixed for ever, but how something gets included or excluded is a complex phenomenon. Dr.Johnson said that the merit of a work can be judged only after a century! Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali is still great after a century;the works of Tolstoy are considered great still; but what about Pearl Buck's "Good Earth"? or Gone with the Wind? So the canon has nothing to do with popularity, or prizes. Harper Lee's 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' or Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (though it has nothing much to do with Zen or motorcycle) are greatly valued, 50 and 40 years after their publication and translated into many languages. But will they become part of the canon?

In this respect, we see how dismal and depressing our situation is. Even during the British rule and freedom movement, our national leaders had one vision and broad agreement on some basic values, even if they differed on details. The constituents of the national spirit and the basics of our civilisation and culture were agreed terms.But with Independence and the creation of linguistic states, linguistic jingoism, local chauvinism and regional loyalties have largely interfered with national consensus. So we have no national canon. At least is there one in the regions? The society is so sharply divided on communal lines within each state, and the regional parties are so antagonistic to each other that such a canon can neither arise nor flourish. One party will undo what another has done!

In any case, the canon in Tamil Nad can be expected to be   full of filmy stuff and political works.

Note:

1. In olden days, literature consisted of mainly epics,written in verse, dealing with heroic characters and ancient stories and themes,which were considered relevant for all times. Then poetry and drama developed separately. Novel is a very late development, but today it is reckoned as the main form of literature. The short story form is also very popular.Poetry and drama are important, but have only niche markets. Of course, an educated person values all.
2.In England women took the lead in reading and writing novels! They patronised the circulating libraries and the first famous and popular writers were women- the names of George Eliot, Bronte sisters, Jane Austen are legendary. Surprisingly, in Tamil too we have had good women writers from the beginning- Vai.Mu.Kothainayaki Ammal, Rajam Krishnan, Lakshmi, Anuthama. The last three dealt with family issues and human relationships with mature understanding and great literary skill.Their works still remain unmatched.
3.We have had a good number of great writers in Tamil of both novels and short stories, essays, criticism, etc :Aarvi, P.Sri.,Ka.Sri Sri, B.S.Ramaiya, Ka.Na.Subramaniam,La.Sa.Ramamirtham,Ra.Ki.Rangarajan, Na.Parthasarathy, Akilan,Asoka Mitran, V.Swaminatha Sarma, Nadodi ,Na.Pichamurthi,etc. Jayakanthan started a new wave;Bakyam Ramaswami started a new strain of humorous writing. While Gopulu is a cartoonist of international standards, Silpi was very unique in making line drawings of our temple architecture- which is unparallelled in the world. They have not achieved the fame they deserved, nor an all-India fan following.
4.When cinema was becoming popular, some people raised concerns that it would kill drama- and it did. Now, T.V has risen to monstrous proportions and killed all other forms of art and entertainment. It has diverted the middle class educated from serious reading. In fact, the habit of serious reading has declined; people now cannot read for long hours.It is only students who study , but under compulsion.

5.But even here, there is a big change. Students even at college level do study only their text-books;the study is so exam-oriented as to preclude not only general reading, but even advanced reading in their own subjects, beyond the syllabus! In taking interviews of fresh post-graduates, I found that not one of them had read any original work of a recognised authority in subjects like economics. I found literature graduates who had not studied Milton or Shakespeare, because they told me they had only studied modern literature! This could happen only in India! Physics graduates could not tell me about Raman effect, or the subject for which the latest Nobel prize was awarded in Physics!  But most of them are all well informed about the latest film and even filmy gossip and tit-bits!If politics dominates conversation of men, tele serials occupy the thoughts of our womenfolk! How can serious literature flourish in this atmosphere? Our engineering graduates are perhaps the worst of the lot. They are so tunnel-visioned that most do not even read novels!

6. I am not just railing against movies and TV. They are the current vehicles of popular culture and can be great instruments of education, as newspapers and magazines once were. But they have merely become purveyors of frivolous entertainment and useless information. The French sociologist Jacques Ellul said that advances in technology have an invariable tendency to be used for useless purposes. Look at our newspapers: the best of paper is used for glamorous fashion supplements; colour photography is used for projecting cine stars and starlets and models for advertising. Has any newspaper or magazine ever produced a decent photo of a Nobel laureate, or a poet or novelist? At least Hindi movies used to have real poetry for songs, and brought classical Urdu poetry into popular culture and great music directors made classical music popular. Old Tamil movies had good classical-based music, though the lyrics were not great as poetry, except occasionally.There has only been a progressive debasement of public taste through movies and TV.