95. ONE HEART, MANY WAYS

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

95. ONE HEART, MANY WAYS

Humanity is one in its basic urges- its fears and hopes, necessities and needs. Cultural conditioning and exposure to social systems lead to manifold ways of meeting these needs and expressing these hopes and fears. This accounts for the richness of human societies on earth; unfortunately this leads too to much  hatred,strife and violence.

Great thinkers- whom we would call savants- from all lands have always felt this basic unity in their being.They have expressed it in poetry and philosophy. Aldous Huxley brought out an anthology of such thoughts  70 years ago, calling it the Perennial Philosophy. Some may feel that it is after all some religio-mystical stuff. But this is the region where whole truths are perceived.

At the end of the First World War, when The League of Nations was established many people felt happy. But the incredulity and irony of the situation was not lost on some deep thinkers. Writing shortly after, Einstein said:

As late as the 17th century the savants and artists of all Europe were so closely united by the bond of a common ideal that co-operation between them was scarcely affected by political events. This unity was further strengthened by the general use of the Latin language.

Today we look back at this state of affairs as a lost paradise. The passions of nationalism have destroyed this community of the intellect, and the Latin language which united the whole world is dead. The men of learning have become representatives of the most extreme national traditions and lost their sense of an intellectual commonwealth.

Nowadays we are faced with the dismaying fact that the politicians, the practical men of affairs, have become the exponents of international ideas. It is they who have created the League of nations.

Einstein's apprehensions came true. Any agreement among politicians is only a temporary marriage of convenience. The League failed and we had one more World War in 20 years. The second war had introduced the nuclear arms, which began  a competitive race, which has not ended but only intensified with time. U.N Radio interviewed Einstein on June 16, 1950 when he said:

Competitive armament is not a way to prevent war. Everything in this step brings us nearer to catastrophe. The armament race is the worst method to prevent open conflict.....real peace cannot be reached without systematic disarmament on a supranational scale....Arms must be entrusted only to an international authority.

Taken on the whole, I would believe Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit....not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in what we believe is evil. 

Quotations taken from: 'My Views', Published by Rupa &co, 1976

How ironical things have turned out to be! There is a clear race for nuclear armaments today. And there is great fear of such armaments finding their way to extremist hands. And Gandhi's own land entered the nuclear arms club! Of course, India was forced to fight in defence, and has never dipped its hand in neighbour's blood any time in history.

It does not mean Indians have not or do not now fight among themselves. Indeed such fighting has only increased after Independence. European nations which were politically divided and antagonistic for centuries have come together, while India which has been one historically is now divided on linguistic lines. Linguistic  loyalties have displaced pan-Indian intellectual affinity. This has pervaded the whole society- from the academies to the street. 

"Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by  narrow domestic walls", sang Tagore. This has come true in a large part of Western Europe; but the poet's own land was divided into two nations at the time of Independence, and subsequently, the whole country has been divided into narrow linguistic walls.

The European Union 

 History forgets some heroes

The partition of India , which killed the ancient unity of our motherland was an act of unpardonable folly. All the Indian leaders lost their head during those last years of the British rule. Surprisingly , the one man who strove to maintain this unity was an Englishman, that too an Imperial guard: Lord Wavell, the second- last Viceroy of India. He was a professional soldier and knew that India had a geographical integrity which should be maintained for its security. He did his best, through two plans and negotiations, to bring the Indian leaders together on some working arrangement. But they failed due to lack of clear thinking on the part of Congress leaders, who were eager for quick power. The course of the talks were tortuous, and it is doubtful if the leaders were at least sincere in their discussions. Unfortunately, Churchill as the British PM was against Hindus and pro-Muslims and he was determined to create Pakistan and encouraged Jinnah. Wavell got a bad name and was summarily replaced by Mountbatten to speed up the process. By this time, Gandhi had been totally sidelined, and between them, Mountbatten, Lady Mountbatten and Nehru sealed the fate of India with Partition.

Our historians have neglected Wavell. He faced very peculiar problems: Britain had ruled India by dividing the people on all conceivable lines: race, religion,caste, community.But Wavell, with his soldier's acumen, realised the importance of a united India  for even the future of the commonwealth .He wanted to avoid partition- a task which involved reversing the British historical role! He could not stall the partition. Unfortunately, the lines of division planted by the British have now grown into mighty trees, with our own leaders adding some of their own, especially language.

The vision of unity does not come to everyone, or easily. I feel Wavell got it from literature! He had been a lover of poetry and could recite thousands of lines from memory! He was persuaded by his son and others to write them down, which were published in a wonderful anthology, titled " Other Men's Flowers". First published in 1944, it is still hugely popular and in print. An anthology reveals the mind and heart of the compiler and here we see Wavell the man. The very first poem is a great gem : The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson. The man who begins his anthology with this supremely mystic poem cannot be an ordinary person! Then there is this gem:

SWEET CONTENT by Thomas Dekker (1572-1632)

 Art thou poor, yet has thou golden slumbers?
                    O sweet content!
Art thou rich, yet is thy mind perplex'd?
                    O punishment!
Dost thou laugh to see how fools are vex'd?
To add to golden numbers golden numbers?
 O sweet content! O Sweet, O sweet content!
Work apace, apace, apace, apace;
Honest labour bears a lovely face;
Then hey nonny nonny - hey nonny nonny!

Canst drink the waters of the crisped spring?
               O sweet content!
Swim'st thou in wealth,yet sink'st in thine own tears?
               O punishment!
Then he that patiently want's burden bears,
No burden bears, but is a king, a king!
 O sweet content! O sweet, O sweet content!
Work apace, apace, apace, apace;
Honest labour bears a lovely face;
Then hey nonny, nonny- hey nonny nonny!

What a wonderful poem this is! It recalls to mind Shakespeare's "Under the greenwood tree". And also reminds us of the lines of Goldsmith:

Teach erring man to spurn the rage of gain;
Teach him, that the states of native strength                                                             possess'd
Though very poor, may still be very bless'd.

That an active soldier who rose to become Field Marshal could remember such splendid poems speaks volumes about the man! That he strove to maintain the unity of an ancient land is no wonder! Alas! the world can celebrate only glitter and glamour and cannot recognise pure gold!

As a soldier, he included a number of war poems. But he also knew that "while love poems are written by those who have been in love, battle poems are seldom  written by those who have been in battle".He said that " A poet is a man  to whom vision is given beyond his fellows." and that "without vision...the people perish". It is one of the quirks of history that a Viceroy with a vision to maintain unity failed, and a people with leaders lacking vision, succeeded in dividing this ancient land!

 

Wavell , at his desk in Delhi during World War II
Photo by Cecil Beaton. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

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. 89. LEARNING FROM THE MOVIES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

89. LEARNING FROM THE MOVIES

Well, popular novels and stories are made into films,with varying results. But does any movie make us turn to the books and stories?

A successful movie with an interesting story may induce us to take up the book. But any good depiction of a literary theme may rekindle interest in old literature.

One such movie I remember is Renaissance Man ( also called Army Intelligence somewhere).1994.

Theatrical Release poster. Used here for illustration .

 Bill Rago, a senior advertisement executive runs out of business. Not wishing to remain idle, he secures temporary employment as an  instructor in an army training school, teaching a bunch of good-for- nothing nuts English language and comprehension! These trainees are considered low on intelligence, not at all interested , and it is doubtful how literate they are!

Struggling to connect with them and arouse their interest, he quotes from Hamlet, his favourite Shakespearean play, to not much effect. In a brilliant flash, he assigns to each cadet  a character in the play and makes him read the lines! This sparks some interest. He takes them to live performances. He even talks to them about Henry V.

He has only 6 weeks on his assignment, but sets up a test at the end of it, against the 'wiser' counsel of the establishment, which doubts that any one would pass.

Then one day, the drill master provokes a trainee in front of every one; this cadet in full uniform and pouring rain, surprises everyone by reciting  in full the St.Crispin's Day speech from Shakespeare's play,Henry V! The cadets all pass the test brilliantly.

Rago receives a salute from the soldiers on graduation day. He decides to remain a teacher in the army school!

St.Crispin's Day Speech

This is one of the most famous speeches from Shakespeare. The English are fighting the French. Duke of Westmorland, one of the military advisers doubts the capacity of the English soldiers, and wishes there had been ten thousand more.  King Henry V  disagrees, and makes this speech to his troops, to inspire them. It is a long one, but worth reading in full.

Westmoreland

Oh, that we now had here

One ten thousand of those men in England

That do no work today.

King Henry

What's he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.

If we are marked to die, we are enough 

To do our country loss; and if to live

The fewer men, the greater share of honour.

God's will, I pray thee wish not one more man.

By Jove, I am not covetous for gold

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;

It yearns me not if men my garments wear;

Such outward things dwell not in my desires.

But if it be a sin to covet honour,

I am the most offending soul alive.

No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.

God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour

As one more man, methinks, would share from me,

For the best hope I have. Oh, do not wish one more.

Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,

That he, which hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart. His passport shall be made,

And crowns for convoy put into his purse.

We would not die in that man's company

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is called feast of  Crispian.

He that outlives this day and comes safe home,

Will stand o' tiptoe when the day is named

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall see this day, and live old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours

And say, "Tomorrow is Saint Crispian".

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,

And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's Day".

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot

But he'll remember with advantages

What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,

Familiar in his mouth as household words,

Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter,

Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,

Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.

This story shall the good man teach his son,

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by

From this day to the ending of the world

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now abed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

From: Henry V, Act  IV, Scene,iii., lines 17-69

If a dull cadet could learn this by heart without compulsion, just on the inspiration of the teacher, what must be the calibre of the teacher?  How grand that   that a cine-screen writer could think of such a situation! What must be the general level of education of the audience to be able to hear such literary recital in a mainline movie! Do we not honour Shakespeare enough, if only we listen, unable to learn it by heart? Is there any other easy way of honouring our greats?

(Note: I  reproduced this speech in full on purpose. There is one Tamil drama called "Manonmaneeyam" by one P. Sundaram Pillai, written a century ago. It is praised as a high work. In that too occurs a speech on the war front. Those who read this speech of King Henry will easily recognise the Tamil work as having borrowed from this heavily- without acknowledgement!)

How to teach-  Language,Literature, Music, anything!

This movie also illustrates a great secret about teaching. Teaching  language typically starts with the alphabets. They begin music with the notes- sa, re, ga, ma, etc. This has seemed to me to be the most  Idiotic way of going about the business. Do children pick up speaking by learning the alphabets? do they pick up the jingles and rhymes on the TV by learning the swaras? When they like a song, do they not learn it on their own? The way to teach is to make the person interested in the thing. He will then learn on his own! He will himself seek resolution of the difficulties he faces. Of course, all of us are not interested in all the things. Any subject can be a vehicle of promoting knowledge and intelligence. We make youngsters dull by teaching them too many subjects and testing them in things they don't like- and they probably don't need in, or for, life! 

Language teaching should begin with literature; music teaching should begin with good songs. In the olden days, most learned people were illiterate! They had scribes to record what they had to say! Even today, how many children can tell stories on their own! Sing on their own! What have alphabets and notations to do with learning, really? They may come later, not in the beginning. 

Above all, real teaching is not teaching a subject. It is about making a man- or woman! This is what we see here, in 'Renaissance Man'. This is what we saw in 'To Sir, With Love.' There , the teacher tells the boys and girls, all unruly, that since in a few months they are going to enter the world, he would treat them as adults right then! With that stroke , he has imparted them the most important lesson in the school of life: responsibility for the self!

Who is a teacher?

The academic world runs on formal qualifications for teachers-  B.Ed. M.Phil, PhD,and what not. We see that once a qualification is formally prescribed, it is obtained as a routine. Yet, how may of these degree holders can really teach?

This is another lesson 'Renaissance Man' teaches. Bill Rago is not qualified as a teacher. But he makes military cadets appreciate and read Shakespeare! In the movie, he talks on Hamlet. They were sparkling. Of course, it was the work of the screen writer- but he too was not a professional teacher!  And he must really have studied Hamlet and 'seen' something in it! (Unfortunately, I have not been able get those beautiful lines.) Teaching is a great art- and it comes to some, naturally! Likewise, in 'To Sir', the 'Sir' is an engineer,out of employment and he teaches unruly boys and turns them into adults. He succeeded, where professional teachers before him failed! It shows he was a natural teacher.

Natural teachers don't - don't have to- teach formally. For them, any situation can be made a teaching/ learning situation. Most of us have learned- imbibed- many things from parents, peers, friends. For good or bad they have all been our teachers.Teaching does not always, or all of it, take place in the confines of the class room.Nor does learning occur there, necessarily.



There are two aspects even to formal teaching. One is to convey something- formal knowledge, organised information etc. The second is to ignite the spark in the student. The first is instruction, the second is teaching proper. Most formal teaching is mere instruction, not very lively or interesting. This is what makes most students skip classes, or teachers. This is what makes subjects dull. It is found that this takes place even in some famed institutions. Recently Harvard created a scandal by clandestinely monitoring students who skipped classes!

Instruction is important too. It conveys basic information and essential knowledge, especially at the lower stages. But higher learning is possible only when the mind of the student is lit up- his soul has to be touched by something more than information. Consciously or other wise great teachers carry some spiritual weight or authority. They connect us with something other than the ordinary- a higher or deeper dimension of life . Real teaching is to make the student touch or connect with his self. He experiences himself anew. This is what Rago does. The actor seems to be living his role. There is nothing filmy about it.

Critics are crooks

I was sad to know that this movie did not receive favourable reviews. The critics have crooked vision, if at all. They ask : how is Shakespeare relevant to the military trainees? Well, how is Shakespeare or Milton or Wordsworth or even Obama relevant to us? Life will go on with or without them! But what kind of life? A literary genius is the fruit of a living culture, and they are the light of the future. They nourish the mind and soul. Politicians press the people for military service and one day the whole thing looks absurd,and sad. A soldier will get discharged one day- all his military  training and combat skill useless in the battle of life. This is where Shakespeare is more relevant. He will make the man in the soldier realise that in the great drama of life, one of his roles has ended, and another begun!

The critic raises this question because he is connected to the medium and has missed its message. He is evaluating the movie as movie, and is not connecting it to life. I would even question whether he is connected to life,either!


It is difficult to say by what standards do the critics judge. I am reminded of what Alexander Pope wrote in " An Essay on Criticism".(1711)

'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill
Appear in writing or in judging ill;
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' offence
To tire our patience, than mislead our sense.

Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss;

In Poets as true genius is but rare,
True Taste as seldom is the critic's share;

Let such teach others who themselves excel,
And censure freely who have written well.
Authors are partial to their wit,'tis true,
But are not Critics to their judgment too?

Alexander Pope.
Michael Dahl [Public Domain] via Wikimedia Commons.

The movie may not meet all  standards of technical excellence,as movies go,  but it is not as bad as some critics may say and thus 'mislead our sense'. The normal viewer does not go to judge its technicalities, but to view and enjoy the story and its development, as delineated by the artists. The problem  for Rago is want of a job; the problem with the cadets is their inability and unwillingness to learn.Rago solves the cadets' problem, making them all interested in learning, and he himself settles down to teach in the military school. Thus the dull cadets become eager learners; a business executive is transformed into a teacher; and both events occur due to the human spirit, not due to  any executive strategy or the rigid military discipline. Is this not a great message for humanity? If a critic cannot appreciate this, is he human?  

I don't go by the logic of the box office. Sometimes, significant events get overshadowed by more glamorous ones. Aldous Huxley died on the same day as John Kennedy. Kennedy event hogged all attention. But in the long run, what did Kennedy contribute to humanity, compared to Huxley?

Aldous Huxley. Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons



Renaissance Man can only be watched as  a movie- it is on the You Tube. 

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 87. THE ACADEMIC TOUCH

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

87. THE ACADEMIC TOUCH

Most of us have read about Midas Touch- the story of legendary Greek king Midas whose touch would turn everything into gold. This gift made him so unhappy , turning even his pretty beloved daughter into gold, he got rid of it.

Illustration of King Midas with his daughter, from a book by Nathaniel Hawthorne for children, 1893. Public Domain.

I often think about the touch of the academics. It turns everything into argument, raising dust. Only, I am not able to decide whether we have to get rid of just the touch, or the academics themselves!

Is Philosophy difficult?

Take philosophy.Should it become so incomprehensible for the common man in the name of academics?

If we read Plato's dialogues, in many of which Socrates is the main character, we are struck by the fact that none of them talk philosophy! They talk about life! And the participants are not academics at all, but men drawn from different walks of life. They are not sitting in splendid isolation from the cares and concerns of life, but very much amidst them. They do not discuss meaning or mind, but the best way to live- what makes us happy. The great minds simplify things; the academics mystify them.

Front cover of the book from the University of Chicago Press,2009.The cover image is that of Plato's head. This is a book of immense scholarship, one of the most original books showing the unity and evolution of Plato's thought.

The same feeling we get when we read the Upanishads. There too we have 'conversations', if not dialogues. The issues raised are a little more serious, because the participants are on a spiritual quest  : What is it by knowing which we know everything? Directed by what does the mind fall on its objects? The teacher does not give a theory or a ready made formula; he directs the student on a quest- of inquiry, discovery- self-discovery! There is absolutely nothing technical or mystical in it. Of course, it is the product of a specific culture  in externals, but its core ,its spirit is universal. The truth will not dodge us, if we give up our attachment to dogma!

Front cover of book published by Jaico, Mumbai.2009

Scholars and academics

Lest I should be mistaken ,  I want to make it clear that I make a distinction between scholars and mere academics. The great scholars enlarge our mental horizons and promote our understanding. The academics promote theories about everything , focus on analysis and render appreciation difficult and almost  impossible and irrelevant in the academic system. The academic system is preoccupied with literary criticism meaning analysis in terms of some academic dictum,and not with appreciation and enjoyment and simple aesthetic satisfaction from contact with a creative mind. Those intent on learning the chemical properties of a flower, what do they care for its beauty?

In his novel  'Hard Times', Charles Dickens tells us about  Thomas Gradgrind, the school owner, who wants "Facts, sir; nothing but Facts" as " the one thing needful" . One day, he asks a little girl, "girl number twenty", who calls herself Sissy Jupe, after her father,[ but who, according to Mr.Gradgrind, has no business to call her Sissy, which is no name, but Cecilia] to define a horse ( which has to do with her

 father's occupation). The girl is unable to 'define'. Then he asks a boy, Bitzer, who defines it:

Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs,too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in the mouth.

 No doubt,this gladdens Mr.Grindstone's heart (or is it mind?) and he asks girl number twenty to learn her definition. Appropriately, Dickens has titled this chapter: "Murdering the Innocents".

Illustration:Thomas  Gradgrind- drawn by Sol Eytinge
from: www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/eytinge/118.html

I have often felt that our academics are all Gradgrinds, his more sophisticated incarnations.

Poetry or prose is now subjected to academic criticism: practical criticism or applied criticism;impressionistic criticism;judicial criticism; mimetic criticism;pragmatic criticism;expressive criticism; objective criticism. Well, how many authors or poets will survive this onslaught? And what do we, general readers, gain from this academic outrage?


Appreciation, different from criticism

Far happier were we with our Bradleys. Sixty years ago, we learned, following A.C.Bradley, to ask ourselves: 'what is the substance of a Shakespearean tragedy' or 'what is the nature of the tragic aspect of life as represented by Shakespeare?' For,how many of us are lucky enough to be spared by Providence of the touch of sorrow or suffering? We expect the great poets to give us a clue. The academics are only interested in finding out  how far the poets fulfil their pet theories! As Bradley said:

the critic never passed from his own mind into Shakespeare's; and it may be traced  even in so fine a critic as Coleridge, as when he dwarfs the sublime struggle of Hamlet into the image of his own unhappy weakness.

From: Oxford Lectures on Poetry, Chapter 1.

Front cover from the book by Atlantic Publishers, 2010

It is true, more information has been gained about the plays since then. But have we gained more insights therefrom? The latest Oxford editions ask us to focus on the play as it was staged, not on the poetry! What a great honour for the greatest literary figure England has produced in its recorded history!

In poetry too, things have become not only complicated, but even inexplicable in the name of critical appreciation. It seems the critics write for each other , and not for the general reader. Bradley offered, for instance, this very straight appreciation of Wordsworth's poetry:

It was not Wordsworth's function to sing, like most great poets, of war,or love, or tragic passions, or the actions of supernatural beings. His peculiar function was 'to open out the soul of little and familiar things,' alike in nature and in human life. His 'poetry is great because of the extraordinary power with which he feels the joy offered to us in nature, the joy offered to us  in the simple primary affections and duties. # ....he tended also to ignore the darker aspects of the world. But in this very optimism lay his strength. The gulf which  for Byron and Shelley yawned between the real and the ideal, had no existence for him.....The spirit of his poetry was also that of his life- a life full of strong but peaceful affections; of a communion with nature in keen but calm and meditative joy; of  perfect devotion to the mission with which he held himself charged; and of a natural piety gradually assuming a more distinctively religious tone.

From: Oxford Lectures on Poetry. First Published: 1909; this is taken from the edition of Atlantic Publishers, 2009; p.83

# We might say, in the words of Oliver Goldsmith: " these simple blessings of the lowly train" ( The Deserted Village )

What an extraordinary passage this is!  In just one paragraph, Bradley makes us appreciate the distinct characteristics of Wordsworth's poetry, in contrast to those of his predecessors and contemporaries, and later poets. He also tells us how his poetry sprang out of his life! Here Bradley has captured the very essence of Wordsworth mind and heart, as stated by the poet himself in: A Poet's Epitaph:

But who is he, with modest looks,
And clad in homely russet brown?
He murmurs near the running brooks
A music sweeter than his own.

The outward shows of sky and earth,
Of hill and valley, he has viewed;
And impulses of deeper birth
Have come to him in solitude.

In common things that round us lie
Some random truths he can impart,

This is what I call scholarship, sir. What is the use of mere academic theories for us? The academics may fly their fancy kites; we want to discourse with the poets. Bradley may be considered old -fashioned. But then, in this age, is not poetry itself considered old-fashioned?