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. 74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Literature and Life

Literature has always been concerned with both man and his inner world, and various aspects of social life and practices.  Religious literature is often concerned with human conduct- social and personal ethics. Even ancient philosophy is about relationship- of man in society, with nature, with God or Truth or the Good or Beauty. These may look like mere ideas or concepts- just woolly thinking, but they were important because of their implications for practical life and conduct. How can you be unfair or mean in your relationship with others  if you believe in the Good or Truth? You don't necessarily have to believe in God or follow a formal religion to bear a good conscience and good character. We have surely met many nonbelievers who are just and fair, while many so called believers in God have been crooked, just using the word or name of God to make a fast buck. Most Indian politicians used the name of Gandhi  for the same purpose. Probably you have heard of 'Gandhi account'?

Modern literature in all its forms is intimately and extensively about human and social relationships, though it is overwhemningly about criticism and disapproval. We have the finest example of this in the English literature in Dickens and Hardy. What or where is literature if it is disconnected from life? 

The religious books give you command: do this, don't do that. The Veda says: Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara = speak the truth, follow the Dharma. The Dharma Sastras discuss the nature of dharma, and truth, endlessly,,without ever agreeing on anything. But our itihasas give accounts of people who lived and followed dharma, in various times and situations. They teach us that there are various aspects, they depend on context,following a dharmic life often involves trials and difficulties but in the end confer happiness and a blessed state. They thus make you aware of the nuances and at the same time steel your resolve and strengthen your mind.

 But a good novelist doesn't teach you.He is not didactic. He simply portrays great characters and situations and makes you desire to emulate them, rather instinctively! They make the good appear desirable! They are persuasive like the loving wife or husband, not stern like the teacher. A Marx took the evils of capitalism head on, and got nowhere. But a Dickens portrayed the same situation through his stories and characters. He stirred the social conscience of a nation, and lot of reforms were made. Is not the novelist more effective than the social philosopher or scientist?

I like to think that in the case of Hardy, it worked differently, in the contrary manner. He wrote about many aspects of the social and personal life and relations, which the society would not openly admit or discuss. Hardy was almost ostracised as a novelist, and he took to poetry. But almost every problem that he wrote about or hinted at has been taken up by psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists. Thus Hardy has proved to be the father of such social science studies!

In India, Munshi Premchand and Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay dealt with social themes in their novels. I cannot say how large an impact they had on the nation.

Social sciences and academic studies

But we have a totally different phenomenon too. With the advancement of academics, and spread of education and specialisation, aspects of life have been segregated for specialised investigation and exploration, resulting in a number of disciplines in divisions called humanities and social sciences, quite apart from the hair-splitting specialised subjects in the so called hard sciences. Each one has an ocean of literature. Every new PhD in a foreign university means one more voice of dissent, difference, division in the name of discovery. How can you get  this degree unless you show the old authority to be a fool or at least at fault, and reveal yourself to be better, or at least cleverer, smarter? There is no end to this process.

This is the bane of these sciences. With so much knowledge around, you do not know what is right or wrong! You simply cannot decide which one to follow. You may hold any opinion, but none seems to work in the end in practice. We see this very clearly in the area of economics and politics, leave alone sociology, anthropology,etc.

Take economics. There is no finality about anything, or even precise information. A famous joke used to be that where there are 6 economists, there will be 7 opinions! Yet, every politician and public figure swears by an economist, consciously or other wise. Lord Keynes, the greatest economist of the last century, put it beautifully:

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.

          Indeed the world is ruled by little else.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of  some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back..

Capitalism and Socialism: difference



Ultimately, the only division in economics is between the so called capitalism and socialism- both in several versions and varieties. But how does this express itself in practice? There is only one measure: whether the means of production are owned by private individuals or groups, or by the 'State'. But what is the state? Finally public ownership means that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats run the show. Public at large is only a participant , not the owner. Even in the so called democracies, their 'democracy' ends with voting. Thereafter, they cannot call the tune.

It is  (was?) believed that capitalism preserves individual freedom, while the socialist state crushes it. Outwardly it may look so. In effect, the individual is only a cog in the machine: unless you fit somewhere, you cannot exist. Only, under capitalism, the process of enslavement is subtle. Socialism is openly oppressive; under capitalism you are made to surrender your freedom and at the same time believe that you are enjoying or exercising it! It is said that in a socialist economy one has no or limited choice, while in a capitalist economy, choice is  wide. But take a practical matter like soap or detergent: when the ingredients are the same, where is real choice, even among 100 brands? Suppose you are convinced, as most ecologists are, that detergents are bad for the environment, what choice do you have? Unless you start your own manufacture, you are bound by the system. Theoretically, you are free, in a capitalist society, to start any venture. But marketing is a problem. You cannot compete with established brands unless you follow their methods. Join the robbers to defeat them? 

There are people in India who say: Look, in the 70s you had just 3 models of cars- the Ambassador, the Premier Padmini, and the Standard, which was discontinued. But see how much variety we have now?  But both in the 70s and now, does the car mean prosperity? How many people can own it? And if every one is given a car, what will happen to the environment? Car is essentially a toy of the rich. If you have a choice here, it only means that the rich have greater fun. Who cares for the common man? Who cares for public transportation? Does the car- owning crowd, causing the pollution, pay for its clearance? And is the economy only about cars and such things?

The idea of freedom in a private capitalist economy is just bunkum. That is why I do not call it free enterprise, but capitalism-its 'true name'! Socialism is bureaucratic-politician capitalism; private enterprise is capitalism by private thugs. As much choice as there is between death by hanging, and death by drowning! Mahatma Gandhi alone gave the formula for real economic freedom: reduce your wants, go by your needs, give up greed, organise production by the masses instead of mass production, treat yourself as trustee of your wealth-not absolute owner, if you take from society more than you need, you are a thief. Any takers?

Economy in any society depends on the enterprise and efforts-labours of the working generation- leaving out the youngsters who are learning, and the seniors-retirees or pensioners. Our old Hindu system recognised this. Valluvar also says that in the Kural: the householder is the basis of all the other orders. (41 and 42)

The only question of practical importance is: how is this sector to be tapped? There are only three ways your income can be dealt with or disposed of:

• spending
• saving
• investing

A capitalist society lets you spend, and runs itself on your spending. Even your investment is tapped by them! A socialist society taxes your income, reduces your ability to spend,and invest, the saving thus forced on you is appropriated by it and spent on social welfare. So, in the end, the question is whether you will part with your income/saving willingly, or it will be forced out of you! Capitalists use persuasion, subterfuge,cunning; socialists use promises and force! Please ponder on this. Economists will only confound you!

In the capitalist order you will spend your money to educate your children, and become broke while your children get a govt certified degree good for nothing. In the socialist system your saving will be taken by govt to educate every one's children, in govt schools, with the same result: a degree or diploma good for nothing! After all, if our education is so good or effective under any system, why is there misery and suffering? In both you are neatly shaved out of our income. In  one, it is smooth, and you are made to enjoy it, with all the fragrance and side show; in the other the process is a little tough- the blade is rough, the surroundings not so clean or pleasant, but we get used to it any way!

In the end, the 'science' of economics has extensive literature, but the economist cannot solve any practical problem. Lord Keynes advised them to be humble, like the dentist!

Politics- what works?

The same situation prevails in the other major social science-politics. We have wonderful theories, fantastic writers. But in the end what works? What is the best, or at least the good form of govt? Is it royalty? aristocracy? oligarchy? democracy? anarchy? return to nature? You have authorities passionately justifying every one of them, and even more vehemently opposing each one.

Popular wisdom believes that democracy is the best form of govt. Ancient Greece is held up as a model of participatory democracy. But it rested on the foundation of slaves. Modern American democracy runs on money- election process is so expensive. People in democracies have become so jaded, disenchanted, they do not even go out to vote. Democracy runs on majority- but in effect majority of those voting. Since many people do not vote, this means ultimately an active minority!

In practical terms, democracy works on the party system. It is only a coterie which controls the party- in any country. In England, R.A.Butler, the conservative party leader was prevented from becoming PM twice! In a war situation, it was the personality cult of one leader-Churchill- which prevailed. It is of course a tribute to the maturity of the electorate that they threw him out in the very next election!. America had to legislate to ensure that  a President can hold office only for two terms! But once he is elected President, he is a virtual monarch! It is again the genius of the people that they invented the system of checks and balances to keep every wing - legislature, executive,judiciary-in check!

Britain is officially a limited constitutional monarchy, though it is the best functioning democracy in the world. The Prime Minister there is powerful, but he is bound by the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet. He is described merely as 'primus inter pares' ie first among equals! This is the genius of the British people. There simply is no second democracy like that. No donkey ever became a horse by aping.

But in the modern day, it is the economic interest that dictates the ultimate policies, not legislature. In the US, the most powerful democracy, the Federal Reserve is the virtual monarch. For the lesser democracies of the world like India, it is the international institutions like IMF,World Bank and WTO that dictate the terms. In the end political democracy does not involve economic independence.

Every form of govt has worked somewhere! Every form has failed too. There have been benevolent dictators, and monsters in the guise of democratic leaders. The mere form of govt does not matter.That is why the poet Alexander Pope  sang:

For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.

Unmanageable Economies, Unhelpful Economics 

The real problem is that most factors determining world economy are today invisible, ununderstandable and hence uncontrollable. It is said that the world economy is influenced more by financial rather than real economic factors. Of the more than 3 trillion dollars of  daily foreign exchange transactions  in the markets of the world, 98% are related to speculation, not real or actual transactions. Virtually every commodity is subject to speculation in forms like futures.Every  monetary system and financial market is over run by derivatives. Most people do not care, do not know but they have the blind confidence that 'experts ' know and they are in charge. The plain fact is that there is no expert in such matters. There is no regulatory or control mechanism: how can you control something you do not see, do not understand? The volume of daily foreign exchange transaction in the world markets is several times the volume of the foreign exchange reserves of all the Central Banks of the world. Today no Central Bank or govt can control these transactions. When there is a problem with Yen or Dollar, the solution does not lie with Japan or USA. At least  a dozen countries have to meet and decide- that they cannot do anything! They only decide to issue statements.

There is such a vast technical, academic literature, but in the end they do not help for policy.

The reason is simple. In the hard sciences, there are definite theories which work in practice. Sound, light, heat, electricity , gravitation etc are subject to known laws and patterns of behaviour, which can be studied, understood, measured and controlled. This in fact is the trump card of the so called exact sciences- measurement and control, predictability and repeatability of the experiment: the same cause leading to the same effect under similar circumstances. And this is exactly what does NOT work in the social sciences.Economics may tell you that demand should increase when the price falls, or the demand should fall when the price rises. But this is not always true in real life. If the price of an art item increases, it may lead to a greater demand. Or the demand for the product with a rising price may increase, in anticipation of a further rise in price!  A generation ago, economists knew this and so admitted that the so called economic laws were not exact like the laws of physics, but merely generalisation of tendencies! No one knows or can predict exactly how the market would behave!  But in their anxiety to make things look like the exact sciences, economists resorted to econometrics and mathematical models. They do not deal with real factors any more.

There is a vast range of fine literature in all the social sciences. There is no doubt that much of it is truly scholarly, fascinating. But in the end, they are all speculation. You may get some ideas, but no guides to practical action. You certainly get to know a lot of things say about inflation when you read 5 economists. But did any one of them succeed in controlling it anywhere in the world? Did any one ever cross a river by measuring its average depth?

These theories in the social sciences are fine- as theories. You can admire them- as you can admire snakes in a glass case. Let loose, they have only harmed society. Every theory is retired at the end-just as every working person has to retire some time. Nothing works for ever. Or everywhere. 

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 71.LITERARY GREATS: SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

71. LITERARY GREATS: SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW

There is a saying with us that one should not enquire into the origins of rivers and great figures. Perhaps what it conveys is the popular English saying that every saint has a past, every sinner a future.

Saints condemn themselves!

In the Hindu tradition, most poet-saints condemn themselves as great sinners, comparing themselves to dogs which are considered  lowly creatures, often giving a whole list of unworthy things they had done. Superficial commentators take such things literally and conclude that they had indeed been morally bad before they were rescued by God out of his mercy.Arunagirinatha is perhaps the most glaring example in Tamil literature.

Serious students know that this is not the way to take matters. The saints are usually imputing to themselves all the bad things happening in society- the five kinds of deadly sins, the three kinds of dire attachments, womanising, drinking, murder,etc. This is just a literary style,  not to be taken literally.

Lives transformed


Through legend and history, some events are recorded as the turning point: Valmiki's encounter with the rishis before he was imparted the name of Rama, Purandaradasa's excessive attachment to wealth and God opening his eyes through his wife's devotion, Tulsidas being snubbed by his wife about his excessive attachment to her physical form, etc.

But such transformation need not necessarily be after a period of immoral conduct. In  Kalidasa's case, it was a village idiot become a great poet through the grace of the Goddess. In modern days, the great Indian mathematical genius Ramanujam said that the Goddess revealed to him the mathematical formulae in his dreams.As the poet sang, 'God moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform'. Yes, mysterious, but not arbitrary or capricious. There is surely a method- a reason, justification but we do not know.

Old idols and fallen angels

In our younger days, the leaders of the freedom movement were our idols- Sri Aurobindo,Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Rajaji etc. But as we grew up, and read more about them, we saw that the public image, created, magnified and spread by the popular press did not reflect the whole truth.

Take Gandhi, for instance. What I learned about Gandhi did not match the image. I understood him in four main roles: as a political leader, religious experimenter, social reformer and economic thinker. He began as an advocate of the Indian genius as the foundation of his political thinking in the Hind Swaraj, but this idea evaporated or got diluted on the way.As he plunged deeper into practical politics, he became an advocate of parliamentary democracy. He developed ideas of Satyagraha, Non-violence, etc but they did not work. We finally got Independence in spite of Gandhi, not because of him.In the process the country got divided, something I can never forgive the Congress for. They had no mandate from the people to divide the country. This was betrayal, and Gandhi's greatest failure. Gandhi as a political leader failed at crucial times-all crucial times. As a political leader,  he was plain Mr.Gandhi, not the Mahatma he is taken to be.

As a religious experimenter, Gandhi is great, though his ideas were not based on a proper or deep understanding of any formal religion. He interpreted Hinduism in terms of his superficial idea of Christianity, and he had no understanding of Islam as a religious faith or historical force. "Iswar-Allah Tere Naam" is the most idiotic formula I have heard. God is one, no doubt but that One is beyond name and form. The Muslim will never say Iswar and Allah, or its variations Ram and Rahim, Krishna and Karim are the same! It is just a fancy, and only idiotic Hindus chant such nonsense formulae.

But there is another aspect to Gandhi's religion- his spiritual quest. He was a follower of Advaita, and a sincere devotee of Rama though his Rama was not necessarily the Rama of Ayodhya, son of Dasaratha.In the 20s he had stated that Ram had occupied his heart and if any one cut it open, he would find only Ram there! Twenty years later , in the thick of public life, some one put bullets right into his heart, and he died with the name of Rama on his lips!  This one act makes him Gandhiji, the Mahatma! I fall at his feet.

His social reforms were mixed. But he was reacting to too many things, a bit more than he could chew, swallowed more than he could digest.

But as an economic thinker, he was superb! He was far ahead of his times.  At one level, he gave and implemented practical ideas of a parallel economy and showed that things could be done positively, constructively  even without political power. This aspect has not been appreciated in this country. 

But the thoughts he gave against modern civilisation,and its absurd economic base make him one of the foremost economic thinkers of modern times. People like Schumacher understood it, and developed further. Today, it has become the very foundation of alternative economics with fancy names such as: steady-state economy, sustainable economics, economy of permanence, humanistic economics, etc. This again is not understood by Indians yet. Nehru himself is the chief villain here.

The net result is that I admire Gandhi in parts. I feel that on the whole, he has been a failure. This has been a great personal disappoint for me. My mother considered Mahatma an avatar of Rama and formally worshipped him, especially on Fridays, the day of his martyrdom!

Greatness thrust upon
Greatness overlooked

Nehru was an early idol- some one we learned to adore without knowing anything about him! As I studied more, and in detail, I feel he is a thoroughly useless leader- in fact not a leader at all, but one on whom greatness has been thrust. He is totally out of my reckoning. All the ills of Independent India are wholly due to the Gandhi-Nehru duo.

Netaji Bose was good but sadly mistaken in the method he adopted to fight the British.

Sardar Patel was a giant, a man with a strong character, solid leadership qualities, sound judgement. He was always wrong when he supported Gandhi, and right when he thought and acted independently. He was giant. If India is still one nation it is due to Sardar Patel alone. He is the real father of the nation, the architect of free India. It is our misfortune that Gandhi did him injustice and made Nehru PM. It was Patel's misfortune that he had to serve under someone like Nehru, who did not have sound economic or political ideas, suffering great humiliation and insult. A kind Providence released him through death. India will remember him as along as it remains one nation.

Rajaji is a very great leader, but born in the wrong place, wrong community. The idea of the first non-cooperation movement was born in his house in Madras , when he had hosted Gandhi. Gandhi decided to  wear his typical minimum outfit when he travelled with Rajaji between Trichy and Madurai. Rajaji is the only congress leader who proved  his mettle in administration, eliciting admiration even from the British. He was the one to introduce Prohibition in India first. He was the one to introduce sales tax to compensate for the consequential revenue loss. He was the one to introduce land reform in India, favouring the tenants as against the landlords. There are so many things he did silently.  Perhaps his greatest contribution was to understand the totalitarian trends of Nehru,warn the country against the evils of the permit -licence-quota raj, and take up the cudgels against disastrous socialist policies of Nehru,and float the Swatantra Party as the true opposition, when he was at the ripe young age of 80!   Unfortunately, people feared his intellect, and forgot his heart! He was not understood fully or properly in his time, or later. It is his his ideas which are followed in a distorted, deformed, diluted dose, without due acknowledgement!

My estimation of Patel and Rajaji has grown with the years, though I still cannot digest the fact that they too had to support partition- Gandhi had pushed every one to that corner.

The point in writing this is to show that with increasing access to information and knowledge, our childhood idols fall from their pedestals. Heroes turn villains, if we keep our heads steady.

This has happened in the case of our other international leaders also- Churchill, Kennedy, for instance. It has happened in the case of sports persons too.

Golden hearts in tinsel town

I have never been an admirer of any cine-star. I used to like the great film music of the golden 50s, but was not a fan of any star, nor had seen many films: I stopped seeing films 40 years ago! Even so, the world is such that you do get some information and get to like and dislike people. I liked that Kishore Kumar defied Sanjay Gandhi, and refused to meet him in the days of the emergency. I liked that Dev Anand even floated a political outfit to oppose the Emergency! I liked that Bimal Roy ascended the platform in his native dhoti-kurta to accept the Filmfare award, when the audience of fashionable filmi people indulged in derisive laughter! I liked that Talat Mohammad gave up his own chances and asked the music directors to take Mukesh  for playback singing in Madhumati, when Mukesh was struggling! I liked when one song composed by Roshan- Rahen na rahen hum- became a big hit, and S.D.Burman rang up to congratulate him, Roshan said that  he had merely copied an old tune of Dada Burman himself- from the song 'Thandi Hawayen, lehraake aayen'- from Naujawan! And I liked even more that Burmanda replied: Arre bhai, we all copy. After all there are only 7  swaras and we always keep copying! What  examples of personal courage,humility, camaraderie, in a  known  dog-eat-dog world!

I have noticed such instances in Hollywood too. Charlton Heston said that his entire outlook and character changed after he played Moses in The Ten Commandments: he could not play normal hero roles. I liked when the following incident was reported about Clark Gable: He had longed to get a child, but his son was born posthumously. One day it seems that his spirit appeared to his son and warned him: 'My son, my son, let not Hollywood fool thee, let not Hollywood deceive thee!' ( So, Hamlet being advised by the ghost of his father is not pure fiction, after all!) I liked when actors were careful to play positive roles, to send moral messages to the audience: when Gregory Peck chose to play a cowboy to show that violence does not pay in the end, or when he played Atticus Finch, to defend a black when wrongly accused by the white residents of rape. And Peck was married to his wife for 50 years- in that fickle minded Hollywood. I liked when people questioned James Stewart how he agreed to play the role of a person prying into others' residences, in Rear Window, which violated personal privacy! And they also questioned Alfred Hitchcock how he could direct such a movie! I liked when 7 famed stars decided to work together without ego problems in The Magnificent Seven! I liked it when Clint Eastwood the hero of many Spaghetti Westerns portraying violence  decided to make amends, by producing, directing and acting in the Unforgiven to show that violence is not the right way! I liked it when it was reported that Tom Hanks is particular to play positive roles with neat messages. I liked it when Sophia Loren showed that she was not a play thing when she just stared at Marlon Brando when he was up to some mischief and made him back out! So, there are silver lines every where!

Big names- great people?

But alas! The literary world is not always good, and many authors are not men of character. It is said that if we know the detailed life of many philosophers we would not care to read their works! Bertrand Russell was one of them. I did not read Byron for a long time, knowing his life. On the contrary it moved me when I read that  Longfellow rushed to rescue his wife whose dress had caught fire, but himself got disfigured, while his wife died. Thomas Hardy had married out of love but was disappointed later. Yet when he died, he wanted his heart to be buried near the grave of his wife, who had pre-deceased him! What we read of Dickens is not always pleasing.Peter Drucker married his wife in 1934  when he was 25 and they remained married till his death at 95, 70 years later, in 2005, while his wife died at 103 in 2014! It is great when great authors and writers are also great in personal life. It is difficult to stomach when things are otherwise.

I often wonder how writers can describe bad things in such detail, with a clear conscience. They say some gory details are required by the story- but why write such a story at all? Unless your mind is already gory! And it cannot think of anything clean or good!

Sri Ramakrishna used to say that one should not act as bad characters in dramas even for fun.

 When a modern writer like Nevil Shute writes clean novels, and good novels, we feel so happy. One reason why I like the writings of Louis L'Amour is that though they are described as Westerns, they are not pulp fiction. He never advocates or glorifies violence. His heroes never resort to shooting for the fun of it, and they always feel sorry that they had to use their gun at all! And just read his nature descriptions! Show me another author who had written so much on nature over so many years in so many books, almost never repeating  them! L'Amour himself is the greatest hero of his writings. Unless the man was himself great, he could not produce such stuff, so much of such stuff! If you want to open a book and read openly in front of your children and spend an entire evening or even day, choose L'Amour without hesitation. With L'Amour, children will always want to be good, better than they are!

When unsavoury aspects of the life of so called great or famous figures are revealed, we wonder what is the use of education and knowledge, when they do not result or reflect in right conduct. Are money and fame everything? Is any method right to get them? Can good people write bad stories ?

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT 69. EDUCATION AND SIMPLICITY

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

69. EDUCATION AND SIMPLICITY

In the name of education, enlightenment, advancement, progress,etc, we have managed to complicate things. Things are not called by their "true names" (incidentally, a phrase made immortal by Thich Nhat Hahn in a beautiful poem of that title) any more. Unless there is mystification, it is not progress, it seems.

This is a game all professionals play in all fields, especially the academics. Economists specialise in this- somebody indeed said that economics is the study of common sense made more difficult.

Law and Simplicity

Sometimes, the name 'professional ethics' is applied to this process of complicating simple things, and deriving profit out of it. Our lawyers excel in this art and craft. What ingenius inventions and subterfuges are required to establish even simple truths in a court of law! We learn that law is not justice,after all! Nor does truth always triumph.

My father in law was a small-time lawyer in a small town, specialising in small-causes matters. Seeing how talented  he was, how sincere but simple, I once asked him why he confined himself to such small stuff. He told me: 'Look here, by some karma I have become a lawyer; it is not right to take up all cases. I first have to judge, not whether the case is winnable, the charge sustainable, the munsif or magistrate amenable,etc. I have to judge whether the client is telling the truth, whether it is really justified to take it to the court, or can be settled otherwise. Fighting cases in the court costs money, and it is a pity that the just or fair party or victim of foul play has to spend money to prove his innocence, or establish his claim, by spending so much money.

'Suppose two brothers quarrel over property or something. Is it proper for me to intervene in the name of law and fan the flames? Should I not, as a human being, try to persuade them to reconcile, because they are brothers- the same blood runs through their veins? Who knows, they may change their mind over time and regret the legal proceedings. Why should I block the chances of reflection , just for the sake of earning the fees? Can I relish or digest the food I get with such earnings?

'Or take other family matters-like husband-wife discord. This is quite natural in long term relationships. Often, there are other people behind things. In every such relationship there is some friction or incompatibility. Have we invented a perfect system of marriage, with all the horoscopic wizardry and all that? Or have the western nations found the ideal solution, with their 'love marriages'? Real life means a process of continuous adjustment, give and take. Should I promote understanding, facilitate reconciliation or further the division and hatred- and earn money out of it?'

He was very choosy in taking up cases, and no wonder, he remained small time, in a small place, earning small fees. But the wisdom he had! Later on, when I read Mahatma Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj", I found Gandhiji had made the same points, and shown how the lawyers, along with the medical doctors  had been responsible for our losing our Swaraj. But my father in law was no admirer of Gandhi, and had not read him. It was just native wisdom- but will it command economic value? (Ironically, his elder brother was a formal Gandhian, wearing khadi all his life, but he practised criminal law! Many followers of Gandhi had been lawyers,who did not give up the practice, Hind Swaraj notwithstanding! I wonder how many of them had read it, even heard of it! Jai Mahatma Gandhi!)

Take law in its 'higher' reaches- like constitutional law. Reading the arguments of the leading lawyers, we will lose all sense of right and wrong! And probably any remaining awe or respect for the constitution. Practically anything can be upheld or established in the name of law. The 17th amendment to our Constitution changed the definition of 'estate' to enable the socialist govt to appropriate any piece of land 'for a public purpose' and the matter of compensation was not justiciable! This was by a 'democratic' govt! Not every constitutional lawyer is a Palkhivala!

I have had occasions in my official career to deal with some court matters, both in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. I have seen leading lawyers, 'Senior Counsel', wait for the 'right' bench, before taking up the matter! I have seen matters settled 'out of court' when there was  specific legislation on special courts in such matters, so that truth could be ascertained or established!

I had known a victim in one such matter.His organisation was to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court. He was fairly senior, and was asked to file the affidavit in his name.The affidavit had been prepared by the lawyers. He had not been in the organisation when the subject of the affidavit had arisen, so he demanded to see the original documents. He was told that the lawyers had seen everything and prepared the draft, he only had to sign it. He was advised by a senior person  that he could sign the affidavit only if he knew the facts and convinced they were true to his knowledge and belief. Submitting an affidavit in the Supreme Court, asserting it was the fact was no small matter. So he insisted on seeing the original papers. The management took it as insubordination, held a threat about his superannuation benefits and he was hauled up before the Directors.He mentioned about the Nuremberg trials and the principle established there: that a subordinate was not  duty-bound to obey immoral orders of the superiors! The man was spared.

This shows  how the so called top managements treat law, justice and truth! They have no inherent or instinctive respect for or fear of law! You wonder whether people practise law, or purvey it! We regain our respect and regard for law only when we read an authority like Palkhivala. To read about constitutional law in theory is different. And about how famous lawyers handle their cases, and the type of cases they handle, Louis Nizer's 'My Life In Court' was an interesting book of the 60s.

Indians miss to market simple things!

When I was in Ahmedabad, I noticed how the businessmen used to send urgent messages and valuables to places like Baroda, Surat,Bombay. Persons used to travel daily, carrying these.They were tried, tested and trustworthy. This was called 'Angadia' service. It was just a local practice, widely prevalent, absolutely reliable, with sure results.

How had it arisen? Due to sheer need. And the native business acumen and resourcefulness of the enterprising Gujarati. They had found the postal service inadequate, and instead of blaming the system or their stars, quietly gone about inventing a more effective substitute.

Later on, society as a whole felt the inadequacies and deficiencies of the postal system, and the near-impossibility of mending the bureaucracy and improving things.. So., they invented the Courier service, which has ended the postal monopoly all over the world, and is slowly ending the system itself. What is this Courier service, but our own Angadia service? But no one thought of patenting it or protecting the 'intellectual rights' involved in it! I have experienced both, and can say that at least in internal service, the couriers are no match to  the Angadias.

But this courier service in India did not come without a fight, and some fortune! I know some inside story. The whole world was experiencing a revolution in the transportation of parcels. Systems like Multi-modal transportation, leasing and sub-leasing flight space, appropriate documentation like Master Airway Bill and House Airway Bill, etc were being developed. Indian business community felt the need to integrate with these developments but our govt., briefed by our intractable bureaucrats was totally impervious to any notion of development. And sensing that demand for changes was afoot, the postal dept even mooted a change to the postal act, making it mandatory for even parcels of a certain range to be carried only by the postal dept!  ( Mail was already the monopoly of the postal dept- but the international courier companies had outwitted this by calling everything they carried  'documents'. Can the bureaucrats ever match wits with business? They can only wield the big stick!) This was when the so called progressive Rajiv Gandhi was the PM! Somehow, some leaders of the rising air-cargo industry managed to meet Rajiv Gandhi one to one, convince him of the case for modernisation, and the proposed legislation was dropped! Today, the Internet has made the postal dept the laughing stock. If they still survive, it is only because the courier service in India is still not efficient or reliable. After all, it is also run by Indians like the Postal dept!

I noticed another remarkable feature in Gujarat. I found that small traders in every field pooled their resources and helped each other. They were competitors and rivals, not enemies. Every area had a cooperative bank of its different trades- like retail cotton traders, cloth merchants,etc. Normally, in the rest of the country people went to  a bank to deposit their money and waited on the bankers to grant them loans with a host of conditions. But here people pooled their resources, founded their own co-operative bank and lent each other and flourished! I do not understand why the rest of the country did not study this and adopt it. Why good and intelligent people still go to inefficient and indifferent public sector banks and the looting private sector banks, and cannot invent a better alternative, baffles me.

These are areas where we have failed to promote and market our own genius. We will spend a fortune to go to Harvard  or Amsterdam, or wherever, to learn dead theories but will not go to Ahmedabad to learn living practices!

Music : majestic simplicity!

How do we learn to appreciate music? How do we develop as 'rasikas'?

Probably we are all endowed with some inborn faculty- see how babies are sung to sleep! Either the the rhythm, or the sound, the mere voice- we do not know what- is at work. As we hear more, we learn to like some more than others. Over the years, we emerge as music lovers of various kinds. Most people like music of some kind. There is an old saying that the person who cannot appreciate music is like the bull sans horns and tail ! Perhaps this is an insult to the bull, as even cattle are said to be charmed by music, even if the player is not Lord Krishna! My father in law used to say: never rely on a person who dislikes music- he may not hesitate to murder!

But to be a rasika of classical music is considered serious business. There is a halo around him. But how does a person become a rasika ? Does he have to go to a school to learn this? There are many"experts" who advocate this theory, and even conduct classes in theory to create rasikas. You don't even have to go to a school now- the school is brought to you through the Internet! Elaborate lessons on theory, history, the techniques, technicalities are given. 

But does all this make sense,really? Is all this necessary? If you want to study music or practise, it may be necessary. But if you want to appreciate good music is knowledge of theory or techniques necessary?

T.N.Rajaratnam Pillai was the greatest Nadaswaram Vidvan we had. Once he was asked who was his greatest rasika. He said  that he was a "vilakku mandai". In those days before electricity, musical performances in villages and towns , especially in processions, used to be lighted up by petromax lamps; these used to be mounted on  wooden stools or platforms and were carried on the head by village boys. They were called 'vilakku mandai'- meaning 'the head carrying the lamp'. Pillaival was referring to such a person.

How come that this illiterate boy had become his rasika? Once during his performance, he noticed this boy enjoying the music and at one point, the boy could not contain himself and quite unselfconsciously blurted out aloud "aaha"- the equivalent of  'Wah, Wah", we hear in mushairas and Hindustani concerts. Pillai explained that this boy had listened to so much of good music by great musicians that he had absorbed the fine elements and could appreciate the finer elements and nuances.He valued this, more than the appreciation of the pundits. Which school this boy had attended? What theory or technique he had learnt?

Appreciation grows by listening to good music. Carnatic music is based on sahitya and swara ie Raga. There is a raga bhava- the range of emotions expressed by a raga- and the sahitya of the sages and saints expresses these bhavas. Good musician has to blend both in his expression. And he has to make the listener experience these bhavas. Emotional experience is the essence of great music: Raso Vai Sa: declare our Veda. The musician should have experienced this first himself, only then he can convey this to the listeners and make them experience it.

This is a purely aesthetic experience. This is beyond the idiom and grammar of music. The musician has to master all these, to master the craft, but he makes it an art only when he expresses and brings out the emotions in performance and makes the listeners undergo the experience. He is a rasika who experiences, not one who listens.

 I have seen great musicians like Palghat K.V. Narayanaswamy lose themselves in the bhava so completely that they forget where they are, what they sing! They cannot proceed further, miss the word of the Sahitya- the assistants or accompanying musicians have to rescue them!

This is a stage which transcends technicalities. We experience this when we listen to Madurai Mani Iyer's recordings even now, or to M.D.Ramanathan.

The above two pictures are from YouTube. copyright position not stated. thanks to the copyright owners.

Robert Browning wrote about it in his great poem Abt Vogler:

And I know not if, save in this,

 such gift be allowed to man,

That out of three sounds he frame,

not a fourth sound but a star.

(The logic of grammar is transcended here: out of three sounds comes not another sound-the fourth, but something else altogether- a star! This is the Ananda that sangita produces- Sangitananda, as Tyagaraja swami says. Such 'Raga sudha rasa panam' leads to tranquility of mind- rajillave o manasa'. It takes you to the very heavens- swargabavargamura, o manasa'. You listen to music here, but your soul has transcended to the very heaven- a star! There you transcend time too.)

Robert Browning.
Public Domain




When eternity affirms the 

conception of the hour.

The high that proved too high,

the heroic for the earth too hard,

The passion that left the ground

to lose itself in the sky,

Are music sent up to  God

by the lover and the bard;

Enough that he heard it once:

we shall hear it by-and-by.

Such music has united us with divinity! Our imperfections are transcended, limitations overcome!

Where are we then- on earth, in heaven, on a star?

Are we then just human? 

What is the value of a music which cannot make us divine? Which cannot make us lose , or at least forget, our little selves? Is it not the best means of communication with God? The best means and method of worship? The very best of human potential and achievement? What is it then that we do not know?

The rest may reason and welcome:

'tis we musicians know.

Sir, which school teaches us to be rasikas in this sense?

Have we not merely complicated everything in the name of teaching people music 'appreciation'? Hearing good music from great masters is the only way to learn to appreciate- not learning theories about it!

And how we have complicated the musical instruments! The flute in the hands of Krishna is made of the humble bamboo! Saraswati and Narada hold the Veena made of wood and strings! Majestic nadaswaram is made of wood and reeds! The drum and mridangam are made of matka and wood and leather- all natural products. Tyagaraja Swami says- give up sleep, get up and practise music with tambura: niddura nirakarinchi, mudduga tambura betti.  Now we have the metal flute, synthetic veena and mridangam, the obnoxious electronic srutibox, and the synthesiser ! We have banished all natural sounds, and we have electronic amplifiers for every instrument! Yes, we have advanced beyond Krishna, Saraswati, and Narada! And we have sabhas to proclaim and promote anything in the name of music! They only want to hear the music of their coffers filling in! God take care of Tyagaraja and his tribe!

Literature : Appreciation or Annihilation?

How do we appreciate a flower? a horse? a child?

By plucking it? Or dissecting it? Or seeing it under a microscope?

We used to read great literature and enjoy it. We read the Great Expectations, and grew up with Pip. We journeyed with Tess and wept when we closed the book, when she faced the President of the Immortals. We could not even complete the Mayor of Casterbridge after several attempts. How many of us can honestly say we read Jude fully?

Mark Twain.
Public domain.



Who did not feel he was a Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn? Did we not travel with Samuel Clemens on the Mississippi and hear " One Twain, Two Twain, Mark Twain", along with him? Did we read any book without identifying ourselves with the hero, and hating the villain?

Which of us can say we have read Shakespeare and could understand him fully? Yet, which of us can say we did not like or attempt to read? Was complete understanding of the character or psychology or history or chronology necessary to read Macbeth or Othello or Hamlet or Much Ado or the Merchant of Venice or Julius Caesar?

How many of us can claim that we have understood Byron or Shelley or Keats or Wordsworth, leave alone Browning or Milton, Eliot and Yeats? Yet, have we not taken them up and dared to read and understand?

Part or even much of the pleasure in reading good literature  lies in this difficulty of reaching an understanding! We know we are with great minds- we are trying to reach there , but not yet there! Have we not often felt in our travels that the journey itself was worth it? Or often more enjoyable than the destination itself? Our reach should exceed our grasp- wrote Browning! It is the attempt to reach beyond what we know, what we can get- makes the effort worthwhile. To strive to seek to find!

We knew our effort was imperfect, our attempt incomplete. But it was pleasure to merely hold the masters in your hand and look at them! Understanding will come by and by!

But this is the age of instant coffee, instant hero, instant  gratification and glory! So we seek instant understanding. The academics come along, and help us. But how? They invent theories. Do you read Tess? Look at it from the Victorian angle, from the feminist angle, from the Marxist angle, from the Freudian angle, from the modernist angle, from the post-modern angle. Yes. Look at the elephant from the head, trunk , tail, pillar-like legs, the tusks, the ears. But is the elephant any of this? Or even the sum of all of this? Have you seen 'Hatari' and watched the elephant dance? Have you read about Keshavan, the elephant of Guruvayur?

 
The great Guruvaur Kesavan!
picture from: www.wehearit.com



Have you visited the elephant village near Guruvayur?Have you known a live elephant, and fed it plantains with your own hands? Have you as a youngster stood in front of a temple elephant as it lifted its trunk to bless you, at the urging of the mahout, after he pocketed the small glistening piece of coin? Which is the better way to see, understand or enjoy an elephant?

There is no standard way, no one correct way! We each relate to it in our own way! That an author can speak to each one of us is the real mark of greatness. A physics text book speaks to all of us in the same way: velocity is speed x mass. But if the author of a novel writes like that, he is not creating literature! Look at this:

Thomas Hardy.
Public domain.

The untameable , Ishmaelitish thing that Egdon now was, it always has been. Civilisation was its enemy; and ever since the beginning of vegetation,its soil had worn the same antique brown dress, the natural and invariable garment of  the particular formation. In its venerable one coat lay a certain vein of satire on human vanity in clothes. A person on a heath  in modern cut and colours has more or less an anomalous look. We seem to want the oldest and simplest human clothing, where the clothing of the earth is so primitive.

( Thomas Hardy: The Return of the Native.)

Now is there 'one' way of understanding this passage? We can never get to know the meaning and significance of the passage until we read the whole story, and unless we reflect on it. Then we will realise, if we had read Macbeth, that this passage prepares us to face what comes, as the story unfolds- that things are not going to be all right at all, that something somewhere, everywhere, is preparing to go wrong, even as the characters prepare for something else! In Macbeth, the witches open the proceedings with the words: "When shall we three meet again-in thunder, lightning or in rain ?". What the thunder, lightning and rain signify we realise as the good general turns ambitious and goes on a killing spree. If you are familiar with this, as you read about the Egdon Heath, you instinctively  expect something sinister, tragic, unexpected. But  if you come to it without the idea of Macbeth, you are on a different wavelength.

This is the point and the beauty of literature. The words are the same- but they signify different things to each one of us, based on our own background- without any contrivance of the author! And this significance keeps changing throughout as we grow and mature. Literature is not physics.Physics is permanent and fixed. It would mean the same thing to every one till the end of the earth. But literature lives, and grows on us, on our consciousness.

This growth is exactly what is stunted and severed by modern academic analysis and dissection in the name of appreciation theories! The academics are teaching us to see things through their eyes and their mind- and their prejudices, and limitations! Hardy becomes a plaything in their hands, and they want us as play mates. In short, they would keep us as children, and would never let us grow and see things our own way! Annotations, explanation of difficult passages etc is one thing, but imposing a fancy theory is another. And I would say atrocious, just because the person developing the theory has acquired a position and following and authority in the academic circles! An earlier generation gave lectures and made us reflect. The present system imposes theories and stifles independent  appreciation. This is the annihilation of great literature. 

Simple appreciation has been replaced by complicated theories. We are deprived of the simple pleasure of simply reading great literature.