From: sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M. Sundaramoorthy)
Subject: Literature - some personal views
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:43:48 GMT

I will reply to some questions and doubts expressed by 
Raghavan Jayaraman:

>Regarding all that poor response:-

>I think this is the real situation and one has to accept  without much
>whining.

	Yes. I do agree.

>I am not sure how many have heard  about the writers, let alone
>their works.

	True. The aim of this effort is to introduce those writers
	and their works. If we make concerted efforts we can do that.

>Next what are the set standards used in evaluating 'modern'
>literature [ex. should it be emotionally appealing or not? - Writers like
>Rajaji chose the latter]. What does 'modern' mean? Is this just a
>fictional story or something else?

	Regarding the word 'Modern', it is usually assumed as the age of 
	prose writing. As far as Tamil is concerned it starts in the late 
	19th century.

	It is difficult to make a precise definition of 'Literature'.
	However, let me explain what I understood from my of reading.

	Emotional appealing may be a part, but it will not make a piece of
	writing literature by itself. 

	'vaazhvu, vaazhkkai enRu iraNdu padhangaL uNdu. indha iraNdukkum
	uLLa campanthaththaiyO alladhu campanthaminmaiyaiyO colvadhu
	thaan ilakkiyam'. 

		                                    -Pudumaipithan

	When these two terms (one refers to the life of an individual and 
	the other is the  wordly life, to be precise the society he lives in) 
	interact, there is a chance for a confilct. This conflict is a nucleus 
	for any literary product.
	
	The conflict arises when we question the existing practices, beliefs
	etc. and find their irrelevance and inadequecies. This lead to the
	abondoning of irrelevant things and creating the new ones to meet the
	current needs. The job of the writer is only to question the existing
	things and the change should be worked out by others. A writer should
	record the present without directly advising how to shape the
	future. The readers should get the message, which they failed to
	realise themselves. The writer may teach, but should not preach. 
	(If he preaches, 'do this, do that', the reader may ask 'who the
	hell are you to tell?'. The writer should never pretend smarter than
	the reader). He can express himself, but should not exhibit.
	A writer's association with his work is only during it's creation, but
	he should totally dissociate himself from the final product.

	A writer should not turn as an 'astrologer' to predict the 'bright'
	future, as happens in many 'romantic' and 'revolutionary' stories.

	He should create his work from the world that exits, but not
	create an imaginary world in his work.

	A moral piece of writing can not be considered as literature, be it is
	age old 'thirukkuRaL' (may be some chapters of 'kaamththu_p paal' can 
	qualify, but not 'aRam' and 'poruL', which preach a lot)
	or the stories that end with a 'moral'. 
	
	"padhiviradhaikku innal varum. paraman vandhu aruL purivaan. 
	padhiviradhaiyin innal theerum. ellaam pazhaiyapadi maarum enRa paththam
	-pasali_th thanmaana kadhaikaLai vittu, caadhaaraNa 
	manidharkaLin vaazhkkaiyai enadhu kadhaikaL vicaarikkum".

	                                             -Pudumaipithan

	This enquiry and criticism is what a writer should do of a man and
	society, but he should be careful enough to refrain from passing
	judgement.
 
	Moreover, the literature is an indirect record the social and	
	cultural history. 

	"oru naaval thani manidha pOraattaththai piradhipalikka vENdum"

	                                             - Sundara Ramaswamy

	When the struggle of an individual is reported, it will indirectly
	report the world around him, as he is a part of the society. 
		
	A piece of literature should give a new experience or add a new
	dimension to the old experiences. Our world may be too
	small or our life span may be too short to go through that experience
	by ourselves. But we can always gain that from others' experience. 
	This will enhance one's personality, expand his vision about the 
	world,	and shape his life. A successful writer should be able to 
	bring this new expereince in us through his work, which in turn would
	give a broader outlook of life.
	
	The subject may be anything, aesthetics, nature, social problems,
	human relations, politics etc. and may be at any level, from a society 
	to an individal.

	In simple terms,  a piece of literature is a souce of experiences,
	but need not be a source of 'knowledge'. 
	
	(ilakkiyam uNarvu_p poorvamanadhu, anubhava_p poorvamaanadhu, aanaal 
	aRivu_p poorvamaadaaka irukka vENdiyadhillai).

	The success of the reader lies in identifying the works that give him
	this experience. It can not be simply discounted as one's taste, but 
	he can be trained to do this. Both our language teachers and popular
	magazines failed to cultivate this. One group showed the 
	'glorified past' and the other created an imaginary present and
	neither of which could show the contemporary realities. Suppressing
	the contemporary realities and hiding in the past glories or 
	imaginary world would not help a soceity to change itself and  
	enrich its culture.

>How exactly those revered writers contribute to earn the distinction? Is it
>their narrative style? or the subject chosen for treatment or some
>socio-political conditions which they chose to attack earned them such
>distinctions?

	It is both the form and content. And they should be mutally
	strengthening. And a writer's success is both the themes he selects
	the narrative style he employs, which should be unique. Imitating
	others will not lead to success, rather it will make both worthless 
	over time. Sometimes, it makes the same author so, when
	he imitates himself (as you pointed in the case of Balakumaran).

	(to be continued)
	 
	
M. Sundaramoorthy
sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil