LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 90. LEARNING FROM BOOKS

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

90. LEARNING FROM BOOKS

Most of us read for pleasure. Most of what we read gets out of our mind fairly soon, especially if we read much.If we read a hundred novels at a stretch- any author, any genre, anything- we would realise , with amusement or shock- that they are all the same stuff, more or less.  Sometimes, the works of a single author make us feel so. Arthur Hailey or Alistair McLean- leave alone Agatha Christie or Wodehouse gave this impression strongly.Of them, Arthur Hailey alone was somewhat  different: he  told us through his "faction" something we did not realise about the nature of the modern world around us: our hospitals, our power companies, our airports, or our automobiles or our financial system!

I once took a bet with my son. He is a fan of Amitabh Bachchan; in his school days , he was a fanatical admirer. I told him all his films looked and felt alike- that he was just a star, not an actor! To prove my point, I told him to watch  15  or 20 of his films at a stretch and then tell me. Those were the days of the video; we hired the video player and started watching the movies- two in a day, later reduced to just one a day. After some days, he quietly stopped it , and admitted that they all were the same- he could not even tell the plot of the one from the other.Of course, now playing mature roles, B has shown the actor he is! 

This boy had an ear for music. I told him that Hindi filmdom had lost its musical sense in the era of colour films and that for good music, we must go back to the 50s and early 60s. He told me those movies were unbearably slow, almost impossible to watch. Here too I threw a challenge: Listen to the music of 20 of your favourite new films, and then listen to 20 of my old favourites. I told him he didn't have to watch- we could fast forward, listening to just the music , closing his eyes the while.. So again, we went  and listened to the music of about 50 films at a stretch. He discovered Anil Biswas, C.Ramchandra, Madan Mohan, S.D.Burman, Shankar Jaikishan, Jaidev, S.N.Tripathi, Vasant Desai, Chitragupta, O.P.Nayyar, Ravi. To tell the truth, even in respect of them, true genius or creativity was confined to a period- after which it seemed to have faded;  they just rode on reputation;but the modern generation music directors were manufacturing fashionable  noise,not composing music. This is a discovery he made for himself. The very fact that much of the old music is still listened to with eager attention, when so much else is available, speaks about their quality.We don't have to value something because it is old; but we should not discard it just because it is old. As Dr.Johnson wrote in his 'Preface to Shakespeare' (1765):

What mankind have long possessed they have often examined and compared; and if they persist to value the possession, it is because frequent comparisons have confirmed opinion in its favour. As among the works of nature, no man can call a river deep, or a mountain high,without the knowledge of  many mountains and many rivers; so in the productions of genius, nothing can be styled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind.

Dr. Samuel Johnson, the greatest literary critic of England
Joshua Reynolds [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons.

But the point is that the modern generation does not get opportunities or time to compare. The cumulative daily onslaught on the senses is so much in volume and variety, it leaves no time for sober thinking, or reflection. Man is just a consuming animal.

In former times, we had a sense of the 'classics' in most things. The Oxford English Dictionary defined 'classic' as: 'of the first class;of acknowledged excellence,remarkably typical;outstandingly important.' A more modern dictionary may say it is something considered important or has been admired for a long time. Obviously, they all involve judgement- some body's judgement. Here comes the problem : today, no such authority prevails in such matters. Even the academic world is sharply divided on such issues; voices have been raised that what was considered classic literature did not represent feminist views, or Afro-Asian views, or minority views, etc. There is no consensus on what constitutes the core or a 'canon'. 

The unstated objection seems to be that the old classic literature projected some rigid attitudes or values, which is no longer acceptable or fashionable for society to acknowledge. What is not realised is that every kind of book or literature carries a message, represents an attitude, whether stated openly or not.

At the end of Hardy's 'Tess of the D'urbervilles', we read a sentence like:

"  'Justice' was done and The President of the Immortals, in Aeschylean phrase, had ended his sport with Tess".

We realise at once that the author does not agree with what had been done in the name of justice, and that he is somewhat cynical of the ways of the President of the immortals. Nay, the reference to Aeschylus makes it clear that it is more than mere cynicism: it is downright pessimism. Was not Aeschylus  a master of Greek tragedy? And did not the Greeks believe, in the words of Homer:

                                        ....leaves            

 the wind scatters some on the face of the ground;     like unto them are the children of men.

Iliad 6.146

Shakespeare restated this :

As flies to wanton boys are we to th'gods.

          They kill us for their sport.

King Lear Act 4, Scene 1.

So, now we know what the 'sport' in Hardy means.He has used the story to convey his 'philosophy'.

Bust of Aeschylus from the Capitoline Museums, Rome.

Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Modern picture of the Theatre of Dionysus where the tragic plays of Aeschylus were performed. Greek tragedies were performed as part of religious celebrations in honour of their gods.
This picture from Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.


Tolstoy did it more explicitly. He had numerous observations on history in his story, but later  he moved them to a separate epilogue. He discusses the meaning of history, and the question whether we have any free will at all.

History examines manifestations of human free will in relation to the external world existing in time and dependent on cause; in other words, it defines free will by the laws of reason, which means that history can be considered a science only to the extent that  free will can be defined by those laws.

In the eyes of history acknowledgement of human free will as a force capable of influencing historical events and therefore not subject to any laws is what the acknowledgement of free will in the movements of heavenly bodies would be to astronomy.

Such an acknowledgement negates any possibility of the existence of laws, or indeed any kind of science.

 Just as in astronomy...we had to get away from a false sensation of immobility in space, and accept movement that we could not feel,..it is essential to get away from a false sensation of freedom and accept a dependence that we cannot feel. 

War and Peace, Epilogue,Part II, Chapter 10.
These extracts are taken from the Penguin edition,2005.

Leo Tolstoy
Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons.

It takes some study and reflection to realise the implications of these lines. What Tolstoy is saying is that we need "an absolute entity for the measurement of visible phenomena". We think we have free will, as formerly people thought that the earth was stationary. But once deeper laws, universal laws were discovered, earth's immobility  was understood to be false, even though its motion could not be felt.Likewise, once deeper laws of history are understood, our notion of free will will be found to be wrong!

The old "Classics" are classics not just because they are old, popular or excellent on the basis of some assessment, but because they deal with such fundamental issues. Not that they gave answers or the answers they gave were correct- but they had the wisdom to recognise and the courage to raise such issues.

We may think that modern day fiction does not have such 'heavy' stuff- thankfully! Modern age refuses to engage  the deeper questions of life. Modern popular fiction reflects this attitude-  but this in itself constitutes a value, a philosophy! It amounts to saying: life has no meaning; why bother to discover any meaning? live as you please, and kick the bucket. It is a combination of materialism, utilitarianism and existentialism that the modern age as a whole practises , mostly unconsciously, as if in a sleep-walk:- just exist, just get along.

Modern age does not recognise any standard anywhere to go by. See how  secular Indian newspapers especially the English ones, are clamouring for freedom in dress, manners, speech, conduct - even in, especially in public places!  They are against so called 'moral' policing , but they can soldier for new ( absence of ) morality!

It ia not as though modern literature is value-neutral, devoid of philosophy. It proclaims nihilism in the guise of science,spreads disrespect for authority in the name of freedom, questions all certainties in the name of intellectual quest. In denying meaning to life, it denies life itself- beyond the senses.


Note:

Materialism: belief that material things (money) are more important than other values such as religion, art, ethics

Utilitarianism: the political and economic belief that any action is good that leads to happiness, that things have value only because they are useful.

Existentialism:  the belief that the world (life) has no meaning,significance or aim.


ARTHUR HAILEY.

I feel he deserves special mention. He wrote on many of the industries which are the backbone of a modern society and economy: airports, hotels, financial system, big hospitals, automobile industry,the pharmaceutical industry, and the govt machinery and the politicians who run it. His novels fall into a separate category. Before writing on an industry, he studied it thoroughly, gathering all the facts, and researched hard. He got so much material that he wove into his books. They are based on hard facts- so I read years ago that his books were called "FACTION".  A book like Overload , or Wheels, or Money Changers packs so much actual information those who work in those fields are amazed; and even after 20 plus years, those problems and difficulties still persist. Hailey proves with facts what Philosophers have always said: life does not fall into neat categories, problems do not have satisfactory solutions, life is based on compromises, there is so much of wrong-doing, betrayal, crime etc behind big organisation. His books, read together , is a much better commentary on how our society functions than all the muck that is spread through our academic system and newspaper syndicates. His books are an eye opener.Do read if you have the time. Time has not dimmed one bit of his insights. Critics did not take him seriously as a writer, probably because his books pack so much actual/factual information. But why should we take the critics seriously?  Any one who has had anything to do with any of the industries would realise how true to life Hailey's characters are. As Hemingway said once, to regard them as characters is a caricature. They are people. 

Arthur Hailey Quotes
By DAMON
www.rugusavay.com/arthur hailey-quotes/
Used here for purely non-profit educational purposes. 


     

                     

Wha

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 25. ESSAYS.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

25. ESSAYS

Essay is perhaps the commonest form of literature most of us are familiar with. The editorial page is usually loaded with two or three, daily.Even the editorial can be considered an essay, though brief and pointed. There have been great editorial writers, though most of them  just languish behind the scene. A newspaper is supposed to be edited by someone, but he need not be a writer- this usually happens with families owning the paper. But there have been great  editors in India who are good writers: Pothan Joseph, Frank Moraes, A.S.Raman, Khasa Subba Rao, A.N.Sivaraman, Khushwant Singh, Philip Spratt, K.Santhanam, Kalki, Ki.Va,Jagannathan, and currently CHO readily come to mind, not forgetting Sri Aurobindo!

It  is difficult to define what an essay is. We can only say it is a short piece of writing on any subject. It used to be said that it is "a loose sally of the mind". Aldous Huxley once famously said that it is a literary device to "say almost anything about almost anything". That is about it- except that it be short, there is no restriction on the subject or the method or mode.The subject can be the most frivolous to the most sublime; the treatment can vary from the humorous, ironical, light-hearted, serious, scholarly or just plain silly. We may only say that the essays are either formal or informal. It has been an effective literary tool in the hands of able writers. Almost all great writers have been great essayists too. (Incidentally, the word 'essayist' is supposed to have been first used by Ben Jonson in 1609!)

Though the essence of the essay is brevity, some long treatises have been called essays by some famous authors: eg. Locke's 'Concerning Human Understanding' , Malthus's famous 'Essay on Population'.Though it is a prose form , some verses also have been called essays, as for eg. Pope's 'Essay on Man' and 'Essay on Criticism'. It is the fashion sometimes to call a series of photographs with a small write-up as 'photo essay'.Even motion pictures are called 'social or artistic essays'. Oh, the English language is maddening in its flexibility, richness and variety in usage.!

Like in other literary matters, the West traces the origin of the essay to their illustrious Greek and Roman forefathers. Plutarch, Cicero and Seneca wrote numerous essays. But it was the French writer Montaigne who launched the essay as a formal genre in modern times in the 16th century. He was followed by Francis Bacon in England. As a former British colony, we are only familiar with the English scene. In the 18th century, Addison and Steele launched the 'Tatler and Spectator' as a purely literary magazine, devoted to the essay form.  Subsequently many varieties of magazines came up, all favouring the essay form.As formal literary criticism also developed during the period,the combination of essay and  criticism proved really heady stuff. Dr.Johnson, Carlyle were all great critics and essayists. They were followed by Coleridge, Burke, William Hazlitt,Charles Lamb, R.L.Stevenson, Thomas De Quency etc. G.K Chesterton, A.G.Gardiner, Arthur Quiller-Couch, Robert Lynd,A.P.Herbert, E.V.Lucas, Hilaire Belloc, Virginia Woolf, Max Beerbohm etc have been great essayists.

The essay form caught on in the US too.Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson, Washington Irving, Emerson, Thoreau, J.R.Lowell, and our inimitable Mark Twain have been the historical American greats. But it has many effective practitioners of the formal type , writing on serious matters  of public interest- Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman etc. Walter Lippmann's political essays were widely read,though later there were accusations that he was a Soviet spy. James Thurber was a humorist.Almost every great American writer has also been a great essayist- Poe, Louisa May Alcott, Hemingway, Faulkner, Scot Fitzgerald. Leading magazines like Time and Newsweek carry essays, though every article there is an essay, like the British "Economist" but they all have their political slants and special agendas.

Our introduction to the essay in India, like in other areas, has been through our school and college. We of our generation began with the dreaded little red book -Wren and Martin's Grammar and Composition.I had a particularly good teacher in the 6th and 7th standards- Sri Kreeda Rama Raju- who insisted that we learn grammar well as it was the foundation for all language skills in the future. And he used to conduct special classes for grammar every Sunday , in the open courtyard under a Tamarind tree, because school time was not sufficient and the syllabus did not cover grammar adequately! He also taught us the rudiments of composition in Tamil, making us write small pieces on concrete objects like cow, sky, water, and abstract ideas like devotion,etc.It was only later that we learned to write composition in English. Those days we would not mug up and so our answers in English lessons would be in the form of short essays! It had to be grammatically correct. Later, in college, we learned idioms, usage, and other finer aspects. But our main exposure was to anthologies of essays- and they were very fine and later we realised, truly representative! We also had some good compilation by Indian professors like G.K.Chettur, K.P.K.Menon Today, all this is changed and most essays, and poems, selected are by Indian writers who cannot write real English because they cannot think English. They use words as children use coins.

Later, I came to know that in the St.Joseph's College,Trichy, they used to dedicate Thursday afternoons just for composition- making all streams of degree students sit in a huge hall and write composition, attempt translations, etc! And their answer books were religiously evaluated and returned on the next Thursday! This might not have turned every one into a writer, but most of them could at least write correct English. Such things  go to make the reputation for the college. But today, things  are drastically changed.

We have lacked purely literary magazines, promoting essays. In the 60s, we had 'Imprint' which carried stories, poems, serialisation of novels and other good pieces of literature, including serious writing. I remember reading a whole lot of good stuff in it:: Nevil Shute (Trustee From the Tool Room), J.B.Priestley (Saturn Over the Water), Alan Moorehead (The Blue Nile, The White Nile) Freya Stark, Hammond Innes, Helen McInness( Double Image, Decision at Delphi),Alistair MacLean (Ice Station Zebra, Fear is the Key), Harper Lee (To Kill a Mocking Bird) H.V.Hodson (Great Divide), The Peter Principle., Psychic (about Peter Hurkos), Ruth Praver Jhabvala, Aubrey Menen, Nayantara Sehgal, Nissim Ezekiel's poems, Shakespeare' Sonnets,  and numerous other books. But it did not contain essays. For essays we had to look elsewhere.

 Luckily, I chanced upon Swarajya which contained essays by Rajaji, Khasa, and Pothan Joseph, Lobo Prabhu. I learned from those pages about N.Raghunathan and his essays in the old Swatantra magazine (writing under the pseudonym Vigneshwara) I got hold of the copies in book form (3 volumes , named 'Sotto Voce'). They were indeed fabulous- brimming with wit,wisdom, satire and above all, allusions to the Classics. Whether taking Nehru to task for his vague socialistic pattern or crossing swords with Sir C.V.Raman for his remarks on the Indians' fondness for chillies, his mastery over subtle wit, and words has to be read to be believed.After all these years, I have not come across another Indian who could or has written like him. Alas, he languished as an editorial writer in the Hindu, largely unknown to the world. But his translations of Ramayana and Bhagavatam are fabulous literary pieces. His essays are the finest fruit of the confluence of two mighty streams- traditional Indian learning and mastery over Western Classical tradition. That is scholarship at its noblest and best.

Since I was Tamil Nad based then, we had familiarity only with the Hindu, which, as A.S.Raman once remarked, one could read "till the cows came home"! It was noted (then) for its sedate reporting and sober views, usually favouring the establishment. It carried articles on many subjects, mostly serious.Even interesting items would take on the hue of  boring school lesson in its pages! But one piece by R.K.Narayan in 64 or 65 I still remember: we had rice shortage then, and politicians were advising us to change our food habits and take to wheat. But where was good wheat to be found? In ration shops? Where was the fuel (kerosene) for the stove, which was rationed and available mostly in the black ? And who would teach our womenfolk how to make rotis, since they could only make chapatis like "compressed leather"! It was R.K.Narayan at his sparkling best! He was a great essayist, and luckily, his essays are now available in book form. 

Later, he wrote a strong essay containing a scathing attack on those who mauled his novel "The Guide" in the name of producing a motion picture. He literally poured scorn and ridicule on those associated with it,  and especially tore Pearl S.Buck who wrote the screenplay, and Tad Danielewski, the Hollywood director to pieces.. He narrated their foolish attempt to get the endorsement of Queen Elizabeth through Mountbatten for the film! It was a very fine piece of serious writing, making me wonder whether the mild author of Malgudi and English Teacher could be so excited! The article appeared I think in 'Life' magazine and attained international circulation. Not much was heard of the director later.

R.K.Laxman is famous as a cartoonist; perhaps, not many people know that he is a delightful writer too! Each of his cartoons is equal to three essays, but his essays are also entertaining! They too are available in book form.

The Indian Express was not much of a newspaper then, but it used to carry very good articles. One was a series by Frank Wright with the title "Unfit to Command". It dealt with leaders who were sick and unable to do justice to their task, and messed up things. It was shocking to find Franklin Roosevelt among them! It seems he was paralysed and not in full command or even awareness of his faculties, when the peace treaty was concluded at the end of the War. It was much later we came to know that it was true.However, easily the best writing  there was by Frank Moraes himself. His Sunday column on 'Men, Matters, Memories' in the name of Ariel was wide ranging. Few Indians could write with such felicity. But his best was the special column he wrote on Mondays, especially on the art of writing- as guidance to youngsters! This was great service indeed. He was an Oxonian, and he could write! For a long time, I had those articles with me.

The Illustrated Weekly was an institution by itself.(though a poor copy of American Life magazine.) There was a charm about it, with those nice,large photos. It carried very good essays (called articles). I used to read avidly the column "Chiaroscuro" by A.S.Raman. The essays by R.G.K. were learned and almost like essays in a college anthology. There were occasional photo-essays by other famous writers like M.Krishnan , and Nirad Chaudhury. I gave up reading the magazine after Khushwant Singh took over as I did not like his approach.

In the mid-60s, The Hindustan Times group in Delhi started a weekly magazine called 'Weekend Review', with Prem Shankar Jha as editor. It was patterned after the American 'Time' and 'Newsweek'. There was always an  article or two worth reading. It was the time of drought, and the first issue carried a picture of the parched earth on its front cover. The lead article was titled "Time Running Out" by P.S.Jha. It really highlighted the gravity of the situation. I think the magazine did not long survive. Today, we have any number of such magazines, but none having any literary value, and none worth reading.

In the Tamil world, we had some good essayists, but only  a very few. Kalki was good either on social issues or on art, like music review. We had Ka.Sri.Sri and Nadodi writing humorous essays. Bakyam Ramaswamy wrote humorous pieces but they were really in the form of short story, rather than essay. Though many articles appeared on many subjects, these were not essays as such. We had Ki.V.Ja, Justice Maharajan, Somu, P.Sri. writing essays on serious literary or religious themes.I think the Tamil audience could not take more. The problem is like this: Writing in Tamil reduces the work to a rather elementary level. The non-initiated would find even this tough, while the educated would prefer to go to the English source. A.N.Sivaraman, as editor of the Tamil Daily 'Dinamani' used to write articles on economic matters in Tamil. Frankly, for a student of economics, this was too elementary, while for the common man, it would go above his head! In the circumstances, essay has not developed as a valuable literary form in Tamil. But in its day, magazines like Manjari and Kalaimagal did carry learned articles by great writers like Dr.U.Ve.Swaminatha Iyer, Namakkal Ramalingam Pillai. The Deepavali special numbers of the great old Tamil magazines were real treats, containing good articles/essays. It would be a treasure if such articles are collected in book form. Some collections of Dr.Iyer's essays were indeed published long ago. Today, it is only CHO's 'Tughlaq' which can make  any literary or even artistic claim. 

On the whole then, the essay has not evolved as a great literary form in India. There are no purely literary magazines. But there have been and are individual essayists, and the newspapers do carry their essays. 

Note:

The essay can be highly entertaining and  very informative. The selections made in the olden days for college courses were quite elementary. Nowadays, beautiful anthologies are available. I have found that the anthologies  followed in literature courses in American Universities offer the the best material- huge selections with stunning variety and range. The books are bulky and costly but they are well annotated with lot of supplementary material. A book like the Norton or Borzoi edition is truly monumental, and if there is no external pressure, it will take months for us to complete reading them- for most of them are serious in style and subject and would make us pause and think frequently. It is a very stimulating and demanding intellectual activity, not the leisure reading on a week end. They are certainly not light, but we really learn quite a lot about many things-science, arts, literature, history-in fact a bit of everything, though at random.They contain the best introduction to some modern subjects and trends.We can get used copies in fairly good condition at a low price.The British anthologies are more conservative, and the older essays are for leisurely reading. 

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.