LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT 88. TASTE FOR POETRY

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

88. TASTE FOR POETRY

How do we acquire a taste for anything? To some extent it is inborn; to some extent it is cultivated.

I remember a personal experience. Over 55 years ago, I left home and joined a hostel, when I entered college. Those were the days we were more orthodox ( or, more restricted or choosy in our tastes and the kinds of food we were allowed to eat) than at present. Boys from such backgrounds found it hard to eat the hostel food. For the first few days, we practically starved. Fr.J Murphy, SDB, the warden- also the Principal- was a great man, a real educator, and he took his role of 'in loco parentis' seriously: he had observed us and knew the problem. He called an assembly and explained  how we were used to our mothers' cooking, how our tastes had been formed and explained that now that we had come out of the cocoon and entered the wide world, we should slowly get used to the food outside. Later, as  our own children grew up, we saw how their tastes differed.Psychologists surely have their own theories. In Indian Psychology (Philosophy?) we call this 'Vasana'- a tendency acquired in previous births.

I think something like this is in operation in respect of our taste for everything in general. Taste for poetry too is like that. If it is present at all, it can be developed, refined. But it cannot be implanted.


Poetry as teacher of mankind

This will be clear if we observe how mass education has not produced mass admiration for poetry. Oliver Goldsmith was aware even in 1770, that the rising industrial culture was damaging our poetic sensibilities. In 'The Deserted Village' he wrote:

And thou,sweet Poetry, thou loveliest maid,
Still first to fly where sensual joys invade;
Unfit in these degenerate times of shame,
To catch the heart , or strike for honest fame;
Dear charming nymph, neglected and decried,
My shame in crowds, my solitary pride;
Thou source of all my bliss, and all my woe,
That found'st me poor at first, and keep'st me so;
Thou guide by which the nobler arts excel,
Thou nurse of every virtue, fare thee well!

The real poet that he was, he could not bear to bid her a final farewell; he still expected her to somehow teach mankind:

Farewell, and Oh! where'er thy voice be tried,...
Still let thy voice, prevailing over time,
Redress the rigours of the inclement clime;
Aid slighted truth; with thy persuasive strain
Teach erring men to spurn the rage of gain;
Teach him, that states of native strength possess'd
Though very poor, may still be very bless'd;

Portrait of Oliver Goldsmith who " wrote like an angel".
From Wikimedia Commons.
"he touched nothing that he did not adorn"- Dr. Johnson.

Better days for  poetry?


So, for Goldsmith, poetry was the noblest of arts and guide to mankind! A hundred years after him, in 1880,Matthew Arnold was aware that 

...an era is opening in which we are to see  multitudes of a common sort of readers, and masses of a common sort of literature; that such readers do not want and could not relish anything better than such literature, and that to provide that is becoming a vast and profitable industry.

Even so, he expressed the hope that 'good litereture' would never lose its currency and its supremacy- not by the 'world's deliberate and conscious choice' but by something far deeper: "the instinct of self preservation in humanity".

Indeed, he went further and asserted:

The future of poetry is immense, because in poetry,where it is worthy of its high destinies, our race, as time goes on, will find an ever surer and surer stay. There is not a creed which is not shaken, not an accredited dogma which is not shown to be questionable,not a received tradition which does not threaten to dissolve. Our religion has materialised  itself in the fact, in the supposed fact; it has attached its emotion to the fact, and now the fact is failing it. But for poetry the idea is everything; the rest is a world of illusion, of divine illusion. Poetry attaches its emotion to the idea; the idea is the fact. The strongest part of our religion today is its unconscious poetry.

From: Matthew Arnold's essay 'The Study of Poetry'. 1880.

Matthew Arnold, by Elliott &Fry, 1886
National Portrait Gallery, London.



From Poetry to Prose!

Now, a further 130 years down the line, we find the expectations of neither of them have been fulfilled. Poetry is still being written, and surely there are great poets among us right now. But does mankind use poetry to convey its greatest thoughts and core ideas? Does it use it as its vehicle of culture? Do we express our soul in song and poem still? Has it not become a sort of an ornament of the chosen,self -chosen few? It is prose that has emerged as the most favourite literary form, the movie having displaced drama long ago.

The very idea of "good" literature is repugnant to the modern consciousness. Good by what standards? All societies had their sense of basic morality- the West deriving it from Christianity.  Good literature was expected to echo it, if not promote it. Writers generally shared it. But the twentieth century had rejected this. Public life is devoid of dedication to a sense of shared culture or ethics. There is no "stable sense of  moral or intellectual  authority at the heart of public opinion". Most democratic societies are plural, and any one stand might be identified with some one group and objected! In India, the secular English press is promoting the mass commercial culture of the West as  modernity- which involves the total rejection of its own ancient cultural values. Thus, present literary trends are marked by absence or rejection of shared values. The cinema, and now the TV have  thoroughly overhauled our sense of values. And they have ensured that the whole society is made uniform- and thus ready for mass consumption. What marks the rich from the poor is not difference in taste- but difference in the amount of things consumed. J.B. Priestley had remarked in 1941:

 "There are wide gradations of income but it is the same kind of life that is being lived at different levels." 

 Some may live in a posh flat and watch a million rupee TV, but what is watched is probably the same video or DVD  movie that is watched in the neighbouring tenements! Mass education, spread of literacy, cheap printing technologies and dispersal of income have all combined to promote uniformity of mediocre taste and absence of any idea of excellence in literature. Most writers " write of unimportant things".....they spend immense skill and immense industry making the trivial and the transitory appear the true and the enduring" , as observed by Virginia Woolf. The phenomenon of the 'Best Seller'  is the best example. Serious literature may be the intellectual expression or stimulation of some, but it is the entertainment industry - in the form of visual media and cheap print- that is the predominant form of literary culture today. The logic of the mass market has made "good quality, literary writing unpublishable". (Q.D.Leavis,1932) This applies all the more to poetry, and serious literature, which are now read only in niches.

From books to Movies?

There are those who regard the motion picture as a form of literature- as poetry,even. But there is a vital difference between watching movies - even good, serious movies- and reading good literature. In a movie, the focus is on action, based on the visual image, which arrests the mind and keeps it focused on the action. In reading the book, the focus is on mental image, which develops as we proceed. The movie stifles the imagination, while reading promotes it! The movie limits us, imprisons us; the book frees us, expands us. Here poetry in fact excels all other forms of art- as good poetry demands time and attention to understand it, even after we have kept down the book. And words in poetry assume a whole range of higher meanings, significances, associations, not possible in prose! The impression of the movie lasts, if at all,only till we watch the next one.

 The commercial TV has edged out the good movie. Like good literature , good movie is imposable to make, almost.Who will guarantee the returns? The commercial TV ad shows the sinister effects of the visual media fully, especially on growing children. And in India, the mainline movies themselves are now resembling commercial ads! 

There certainly were creative directors who gave us good, meaningful movies in India- even tackling daring social themes in creative ways. We had our Shantaram, Bimal Roy, Hrishikesh Mukherjee who combined art with craft. But it was mainly in the 50s when most cine-goers were also patrons of literature, and music. Indian films had good music , mainly based on the classical, folk and regional varieties; later on, they adapted from  Western music too, especially in orchestration., helped by some fabulous trained musicians from Goa. They were matched by good lyrics by poets- they are still remembered today.But this too did not last beyond the 60s. However, the old music created in those days is still popular, and through the Internet, they are reaching even wider audiences. But the over all trend there too is towards a mass-culture, ruled by commercial interests.

Does it mean that  a good story or novel cannot be presented well through the visual media?  Yes, with rare exceptions. The impact of reading  is much stronger, and lasts longer, is more varied than the visual media can  convey. Those who have not read the story may perhaps enjoy, but not the mature readers. In the West, people mention  Gone With The Wind,  To Kill A Mocking Bird,  The Graduate,The Godfather. I do not know. I watched Great Expectations, and didn't like it. The movie may be a success- as a movie, by movie standards, but it does not mean it has been true to the story. The movie version of 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' centred on the court trial and many parts involving the children were removed! In Hindi movies, I know of none which was as good as the story, except perhaps Devdas. Personally, I think Teesri Kasam was a good film, based on a short story and was well made, with fine acting and good music.. But it failed, and the producer, the fine poet Shailendra, died broken-hearted. Compared to the so called action movies, spy thrillers,,etc combining a heady dose of sex and violence, the good novel or short story stands no chance. 

 R.K.Narayan's novel 'The Guide' was thoroughly spoiled by the movie makers, which attracted strong criticism from Narayan himself in a lengthy article in the 'Life' magazine.. Even the TV adaptation of stories of Malgudi  could not satisfy the serious readers, though the TV serial was not bad. Somehow, the focus on the visual shrinks the mental horizon.

 Ah, before I forget, I must mention The Shootist, (1976) the last movie  role of John Wayne ,  with James Stewart in it. But the movie ended differently from the original story, and had some other vital changes, at the instance of John Wayne. It had a touching theme, well suited for the visual medium.John Wayne had selected the main cast, and also kept his horse  'Dollar'.But it was only considered a minor success, though well made and received high praise. This is my personal favourite among John Wayne's movies
.



Front cover of the University of Nebraska Press edition, 2011




 I read the book after watching the movie on DVD. The book is very good, but I liked the film version better- the changes made by Wayne were in fact very sensitive, but made to suit his screen image: as when he refuses to shoot in the back, and when he approves of the son of the landlady throwing away the gun, indicating his disapproval of a life of  gun and violence. What a message in the last film role of a star of nearly 200 Westerns!


In the 60s, there were three movies dealing with the subject of student-teacher relations, in a changing social context: To Sir With Love; Goodbye,Mr.Chips; Up The Down Staircase. They interested me because I have always valued teachers as the pillars of society. All three were based on well-known and well-loved stories,  based on personal experience of the authors and real life situations. They were good, very good. I could read only the first two books, in condensation at first,, in the Readers' Digest. The third book, highly rated, was not easily available. The movies attracted all types of criticism, but the books make for excellent reading.It was a surprise to know that Mr.Chips was written in 1934! I would say that the books speak to you at a deeper and higher level than the movies, though they carried convincing performances from the main cast. 

E.R. Braithwaite, celebrated author of  To Sir, With Love.Photo by Carl Van Vechten,1962. From Wikimedia Commons

Bel Kaufman, author of Up The Down Staircase. 
2012 Photo by Open Road Media via Associated Press.
Thankfully acknowledged.
 But all such successful movie adaptations were not always based on well-known stories; rather the stories became known after the movie. But there is a risk: those who see the movie first may not get to read the original story- which I feel is a grave injustice to the writer and his artistic genius. It works both when the film is good, and otherwise! In the guise  of 'adapting ' it to the screen or writing the scenario, they do maul and mangle the spirit of the author.


The book may never compete with the visual media in entertainment value, but the movie can never become a serious literary form, can never match the book, unless we learn to forget reading as technology progresses! Who can say for sure- in the next fifty years, this too may come to pass! Most of us, especially the younger generation, have already given up serious reading,; we may give up reading as serious literary activity as we advance further!


The house that Narayan built

                        

                    under demolition. Photo submitted by Pramod Singh

The house R.K.Narayan built and lived in, in Mysore from 1948.Kannada writers raised objection when it was sought to be converted into a memorial by the state govt. Thus does free India honour its famous literary 'suns'!

Note:

The photos/ pictures are shown here for purely educational purposes, and also as a mark of respect for these great spirits which shape our society. No commercial motive is involved, no copyright violation intended. If there is any objection, they will be removed.