LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 82. ENJOYING READING

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND  DELIGHT

82. ENJOYING READING

We live in times when there is a theory about everything. There is lot of literature on how to read, what to read, and why, and so on. Like in most things, no one theory is right. There are as many ways as there are readers.

Reading for pleasure or ?

One factor is basic: whether we read for pleasure, or for some more serious purpose, such as  formal study. In our school days, over half a century ago, the two rather coincided: the syllabus was small, the teachers were good- most knew the poems by heart and their teaching was like mono acting. They obviously enjoyed what they were doing. When the teacher taught us the Friar's speech in Romeo and Juliet, beginning " I will be brief, for my short date of breath", we felt the teacher might break down any moment-such was the intensity of his feeling. Who could then say we were just learning for passing an exam? 

In teaching Tamil poems, the teachers would first 'sing' it- ie recite it in an appropriate tune, then recite it without the tune but with the rhyme and other features unbroken, then read it with the compound words duly split to make the meaning clear. By the time he finished it, most of us would have learned it by heart! There were teachers who could not finish a poem in the whole period- the teacher for the next 'period' would adjust . Unfortunately, we had such rules as four periods in the morning session, each period dealing with one subject, etc. We would be happy that the maths period was over, or the science class, but would feel distressed when an interesting topic in history or literature had to be interrupted because the period was 'over'. Some days the teachers would be inspired and one word or suggestion would lead them on and on- they and we would forget everything. Not that every teacher was like this, but why judge anything by the bad specimen?

So we 'learned' how to read, we were not taught.

For the prose, we were made to read the  paras by turns. The teacher would correct us. Most boys could not do it . But we tried and learned. But this was such a small part of the whole- hardly two periods a week- about 90 minutes! 

Serious reading on our own started in college. There were nice essays by mostly renowned writers and we would read, analyse and discuss- but with an eye on the exam.

But in the last half century, things have become businesslike. Syllabuses are heavy, there is too much to read, too little time or leisure to absorb, study of language and literature has become a mere formality- it is all gone through as a chore. Where is the idea of pleasure at all?

Should Shakespeare be read?

Shakespeare we know was primarily drama- but we could only read it as poetry- everything was poetry for us! But we did not simply read; there was lot of visualisation. I think this has done us good in the long run.

Had we seen the play enacted, our image would have been affected by the actor's appearance and mannerisms. I don't see how any actor, however great, could portray a Hamlet or Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Was Hamlet feigning madness or had he really gone mad? We see there are so many interpretations- we can imagine or visualise all , depending on our mood and deepening understanding over the years. I for one feel that 'reading' Shakespeare is more rewarding than witnessing a play enacted. 

Reading here does not mean just going through the words- it is creating a mental image: in fact, the image forms of itself- we  only have not to interfere!

The amount and depth of scholarship on the subject is simply incredible. Every edition has something in it- alas, we have such limited time and capacity to understand and appreciate!

The "Complete Works"  of Shakespeare by the Royal Shakespeare Company (2008) has a great instruction on how to 'read' Shakespeare. In his preface, Michael Boyd, Artistic Director of the Company writes:

There is an extent to which you shouldn't 'read' the book at all, but rather speak the parts out loud. You need to imagine the use of space, time, pitch,and rhythm as well as the (sometimes) unspoken voice of the audience, that are all essential to the realization of  what the scripts imply. They were not written as literature and should not be 'read' as such.

It is true they were not written as literature- ie for merely reading. But they are great literature-the greatest in the English language!.

Mahabharata!

The mind jumps to our own books- like the Mahabharata. It was never 'read' ie studied in the olden days, our own younger days.  A learned man recited it aloud,in an assembly, big or small, in the appropriate metre and tune, and explained the meaning. It would bring in a lot of other things- comparison with other characters from other books, similar thoughts and quotations, songs, etc. It was a complete mono-acting performance, often to the accompaniment of musical instruments.It contained all the features that Boyd has indicated! It was an experience to sit through a session like this.

The Mahabharata  is a unique book-it is an unfinished book. Each one of us has to write 'finis' in our own way- some of the questions raised will have to be answered by each one of us in our own way! No character is either black or white, wholly! We know some characters are born evil- they could not change. Duryodhana for instance says he knows what is right- he cannot do it; he knows what is wrong- but he can't avoid doing it; there is an inner compulsion which he has to obey! What do you do with such a character? Was he a mere tool in the hands of fate  or the gods- as the Greeks would have it? We pity his helplessness, as much as we hate his cruelties and misdeeds. Yudhishthira is the very image of dharma- righteousness- but some of the things he does are plain hideous- like staking  the common wife after he lost himself in the game of dice! Though he is the embodiment of dharma, he does not win our wholehearted affection. We feel he did not apply his mind to practical situations, and interpreted dharma in his own way! (After all, this is what every one else does too, !) Bhishma is a venerable figure- but he sides with the wrong party knowing that they are wrong! He does not act when Draupadi is sought to be disrobed in the assembly! How can you fully like him? Bhima is mighty- but mighty in his cruelty too. But he alone among the five brothers has a really tender heart for Draupadi- he cares for her feelings and protects her personally. You see such tenderness in such unexpected corners! You are really moved! Aswathama is such a despicable figure- killing the five Pandava princes when they are asleep- an act despised even by the born evil doer-his master Duryodhana; yet Draupadi does not want him killed- she has such a motherly heart that in spite of her own suffering , she does not want the mother of Aswathama to undergo the same suffering- the loss of her son!  She is thus a mother to other mothers too! And we have Kunti, who prays to the Lord: 'Lord, whenever we had suffering, you came to protect us. Give me more suffering if that will get us your company!' How many of us can pray like that! Above all, we have the lingering doubt: could not Krishna have prevented the holocaust, if he really intended it? Was it that in this instance, evil would not end , except with the end of the evil doers? Who can answer? Such is the complex beauty of Mahabharata. Only a traditional  pravachanam could do justice. A dramatic portrayal , or Cinema or TV shows would be like a caricature.It would show people as black or white- not as they are portrayed in the Itihasa. However individual episodes have always been depicted in dance and drama, as also in the movies. 

We can surely agree with Michael Boyd that such things are not meant to be 'read'! We feel so happy, and also humble when we get such nice tips! There is such a universal touch in the appreciation of literature! Why should physical or linguistic geography be allowed to interfere with the reign of the mind?