LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
41. WHAT IS GOOD LITERATURE?
Academics are endlessly debating what constitutes good literature. This too is subject to shifts in fashion, and changing concepts. An ideal definition never created an actual thing. Debates are after the event or fact. 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' or 'To Sir With Love' just happens! No critic ever wrote a best seller! So, we can't say what makes for good literature, but we can recognise it when we have it! We see it again and again- as we saw recently in 'The Secret Life of Bees' or 'The Help'. I would only say, great literature is what touches your heart!
O world, thou choosest not the better part!
It is not wisdom to be only wise,
And on the inward vision close the eyes,
But it is wisdom to believe the heart.
That lights the pathway but one step ahead
Across a void of mystery and dread.
Bid , then, the tender light of faith to shine
By which alone the mortal heart is led
Unto the thinking of the thought divine.
George Santayana, Sonnet III
Most people swear by science. But does science offer a definitive answer to any basic question of life- right from obesity to longevity, health of the heart to health of the mind? Every fresh MD or PhD floats a new theory. One best-seller replaces another, but people continue to suffer. Benjamin Spock's book on Baby and Childcare advocated different theories on breast feeding through several editions. Research goes on, about the comparative advantages of consuming coffee or tea, but all studies lack credibility because the research is funded by the beverage companies! Books on psychology advocate different ideas on bringing up children, just like economists from different schools offer different solutions to the same problems. All the while, both children and economies continue to suffer! When it comes to solving practical problems of life, science seems to be a wonderful and costly way of wasting our time! But good literature has always offered us practical advice on basic issues.
What is the ideal age for marriage? Politicians and reformers legislate on minimum age, but no one dares an opinion on the ideal age. Civilised societies have always thrived on the basis of settled family life, which is also extolled by all religions. But modernist elements believe in such absurdities like 'living together' ,'live in relationship' , or monstrosities like 'gay marriage'. One prominent result of widening women's education and their liberation movements has been the weakening of the idea of marriage and family life; the demands of professional education and economic independence have raised the age of marriage, and reduced its attractions for many. This is now clearly seen in India too. But a society like the United States has not been able to solve the problems of rape on campuses (reported in newspapers today,2 Dec, 2014), teen age pregnancy, childbirth out of marriage, single parent dwellings (do we call them homes?), and the ubiquitous divorce. To me it appears all this is traced to only one factor- people do not marry sufficiently young, and are not steady in their marriage, when they do.
Religions have their say in the matter, but no one listens any more. Poets have their own take.The inimitable Shakespeare touches on this in the very first Sonnet!
From the fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decrease
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to thy gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding.
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.
Here, Shakespeare speaks about the obligation on the part of people with some excellence or accomplishment to marry and beget children. Time snatches away everything, but those who beget children achieve a sort of immortality as they continue to live in them! Otherwise, their life is wasted like that of a pig, which only eats and goes to the grave. ('Fairest' here does not mean mere physical beauty- it means, in the Platonic sense, beauty of the soul.) This sonnet is indeed philosophical. In the Indian tradition , the son is called 'atmajan' ie the one who carries and thus continues the atma of the father!
The first 17 sonnets of Shakespeare deal with this theme of the obligation of youngsters to marry and beget children. Shakespeare is candid-that one should marry when young. But how young? By forty, they already show signs of ageing!
When forty winters shall besiege thy brow
And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,
Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now
Will be a tattered weed, of small worth held....
If thou couldst answer, "This fair child of mine
Shall sum my count , and make my old excuse,"
Proving his beauty by succession thine.
This were to be new made when thou art old,
And see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.
Sonnet,2.
But if thou live remembered not to be,
Die single and thine image dies with thee.
Sonnet,3.
(If the man chooses to live single and not to have a child to remember him, he will die alone, leaving no memory)
To give away yourself keeps yourself still,
And you must live, drawn by your own sweet skill.
Sonnet,16.
Having a baby would preserve one's image- it amounts to one ensuring that one lives on, by one's own design!
All the first 17 sonnets are on this theme, and seeing his stress on this subject, we wonder whether it it Manu or Tiruvalluvar, speaking in the guise of Shakespeare! Can any modern scientist, from any discipline, come anywhere near, in giving advice on an important aspect of life? No wonder, all so called scientifically advanced societies are facing disruption in family and discord in marital relations.Sadly this disease is spreading in India too.
A generation ago, the American psychologist, J.P.Guilford's book on general psychology was widely read. (It was one of the first books made available in India under the joint Indo-US Textbooks program in the mid 60s) He reported an interesting finding or proposition there. He held that people with above-average intelligence are reluctant to have large families and choose to have less children, so that the smaller number of children will have greater access to better facilities. This meant, by implication, that the great increase in the number of children, and consequently in population was on account of the not so intelligent sections of society! At least one part of his theory seems true: most well educated people in India today have small families. Among the educated sections, girls are approaching marriage at 30+. One can draw one's own conclusions as to the long -term impact of this trend.
Great literature has always dealt with the great problems of life, directly, indirectly, obliquely. It could take the form of upholding the tradition, or seeking to uproot it. Much of modern literature is of the latter category, the voice of reform or revolt predominant everywhere. All reforms have ended either in the aims being betrayed, or in creating new orthodoxies, as we saw in the cases of the French and Bolshevik revolutions. All ideals end up as mere slogans. The western nations claim to champion democracy and freedom, but people are sacrificed on the altar of corporate freedom to loot; democracy is selectively marketed abroad- even today, US nurses its global ambitions only on the strength of puppet regimes; all talk of freedom ends when the Chinese enter the scene: no one cares for the Chinese occupation of Tibet. When the so called democratic west hounds a Julian Assange or Edward Snowden for disclosing truth to safeguard civic freedom, we know how hollow are their claims for upholding freedom. (Incidentally, Snowden is a Buddhist.)
Everywhere on earth, in every country we see strife.Every society is divided on some issue or the other. Most individuals are also at loggerheads on some ground or the other. Modern man seems incapable of deep friendship and lasting association, and our modern lifestyle provides little opportunity or time for it. At base, the issues are trivial, and inconsequential in the long run; but people now cannot think long term; societies live from election to election. In the beginning of his poem 'The Rape of the Lock', Alexander Pope wrote:
What dire offence from am'rous causes springs,
What mighty contests rise from trivial things,
Our Itihasas illustrate the truth of the former.Ramayana was due to Ravana's fascination for Sita; the conflict between the two branches of the Kuru clan was on account of the claim to kingdom, but Draupadi was also an important factor. Iliad was on account of Helen; subsequently, Cleopatra had a role in historical upheaval. But the many conflicts in the world today arise from very trivial issues or even non-issues.
Nearer home, we in India are only obsessed with trivial things: we seem to have lost our faculty to raise our heads and look up! States are quarrelling on inter-state river, water-sharing, border areas, languages, community identity,etc. Recently in Andhra, we saw people speaking the same language quarrel; they separated, but quarrel has not ended. How can politicians live if there is no conflict? They have to invent one!
Leave alone the politicians. How about our religious people? Sects or groups fight, even within the same division. There have been quarrels as to who has the right to worship first in a temple! Two sects of Madras Srivaishnavas fought on what type of religious sign should be marked on the head of the Kancheepuram temple elephant!- it is called the 'Naamam'; one is "U" shaped, the other is "Y" shaped. This went on for many years. I am not sure how it ended- the matter finally going to the Supreme Court, which decided that both should be used, one on alternate years or days!. Whatever philosophy one may preach, in small practical matters, most people are found to have feet of clay!
A reformer or revolutionary engages in vehement criticism,and evokes equally violent or strong reaction, while a poet or novelist may poke gentle fun and make the parties realise their folly. Karl Marx predicted that Capitalism would end-for it was in the very nature of the dialectic; when there were no signs of it happening, the philosopher turned into a politician and attempted revolution. But a Dickens quietly wrote novels depicting the evil effects of the rising factory system; this led to serious heart-searching on the part of society, and led to change and improvement. A revolutionary considers the agents of a wrong as villains; the novelist or poet has a greater vision; they see them as victims and prisoners of a system. In the end, the revolutionaries lose both their battle and people's sympathy. (In any successful revolution, it is violence which wins temporarirly, not the cause.) The poet or novelist stands as a lighthouse. This is the greatness of literature.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment