Literary Criticism - Contemporary Tamil Literature

Topic started by Mani M. Manivannan (@ cpe-24-221-181-57.ca.sprintbbd.net) on Wed May 2 02:14:57 .


W. H. Auden wrote:

What is the function of a critic. So far as I am concerned, he can do me one or more of the following services:

1. Introduce me to authors or works of which I was hitherto unaware.

2. Convince me that I have undervalued an author or a work because I had not read them carefully enough.

3. Show me relations between works of different ages and cultures which I could never have seen for myself because I do not know enough and never shall.

4. Give a "reading" of a work which increases my understanding of it.

5. Throw light upon the process of artistic "making."

6. Throw light upon the releation of art to life, science, economics, ethics, religion, etc.

- "The Dyer's Hand and Other Essays" (Random House, Inc., 1972)

Cleanth Brooks added in his articles of faith "That in a successful work, form and content cannot be separated and that form is meaning."

These are useful definitions of literary criticism, perhaps descriptions of a formalist criticism. Of course, there are other types of criticisms such as the Deconstruction, Jungian or archetypal, Historical, Marxist, Biographical, Psychoanalytical, Ethnic (minority?), etc. There is always the reader's criticism that usually is a single reader's perspective on something that they read. I invite readers to post their criticisms of something that they have read using Auden's guidelines in mind. Excerpts from professional critics are also welcome.

This can be a good thread.
If the definition for 'Criticism' is that what Auden put forward, then what is 'Review'?

Mani:
I will change your second point to read persuade to change the readers understanding of an author. Whether I undervalued or overvalued the author is immaterial.

Bhoori,

There is a subtle but very important difference between W. H. Auden's second statement and yours. Auden was an important poet as well as a respected critic. But rather than split hair over that, can we use this thread to post our impressions of a Tamil book that we have read?

This is outside Auden's guidelines and is more a single reader's perspective that Mani is referring to in his footnote.

I read Ramanujar by Indra Parthasarathy recently. It is in drama format.Overall, I liked it as a good attempt at developing a relatively rare genre in contemporary Tamil lit.

For some reason, I perceived that Ramanujar comes out more as a missionary trying to envelop everyone into his faith rather than as a revolutionary against orthodoxy.

Can I have the benefit of different perspectives?

Ramji,

What do you think an author should do? Should he attempt to interpret an historical figure based on available evidence or should he attempt to project modern values on an historical figure? Authors have done both. As Prof. Sam Sankaran once mentioned in the Tamil.net, Ramanujar may have been a prisoner of his time and may have gone only as far as he can get away with.

I think I. Pa. does not conclude one way or the other. He just narrates the events and lets us come to our conclusion. I came to the conclusion that Ramanujar was neither a revolutionary nor a missionary. He was more of a reformer. That is perhaps why he was limited in what he could accomplish and had to compromise.

I do agree that it is refreshingly different and walks a fine line between patronizing and sermonizing.

"*Ä츢 ŢÁ÷ºÉõ - ¾ü¸¡Äò ¾Á¢Æ¢Ä츢Âõ" ¾Á¢Æ¢ø ±Ø¾¢É¡ø Å¡º¢ì¸ ²Ðš¢Õì̧Á

Mani:

My question was not a comment on I Pa 's interpretation or lack thereof. Infact, I liked the way he leaves the conclusion to us. As one who hadn't studied any historical account of Ramanujar, I had all along carried the impression he was a revolutionary. Well, how far apart are a reformer and a revolutionary anyway?


º¢Å»¡Éõ:

´ôÒì ¦¸¡û¸¢§Èý. ¬É¡ø ¾Á¢Æ¢ø ÀÊôÀ¨¾ ¬í¸¢Äò¾¢ø ¯¨Ã¡¼ *ýÛõ «¾¢¸õ §À÷ §º÷Å¡÷¸û ±ýÀÐ ±ý ±ñ½õ. «Ð×õ Å¢ÁâºÉõ §À¡ýÈ Å¢„Âí¸Ç¢ø.

¦ÀÕõÀ¡ý¨Á¢É÷ Å¢ÕõÀ¢É¡ø ÓÂø¸¢§Èý.

Á½¢ ±ýÉ ¦º¡ø¸¢È£÷¸û?

Mani,

This seems to be a more suitable thread to discuss our opinions on literary criticism.

You had written in the "10 best novels" thread that you feel the necessity to criticize the typos even in Jeyamohans postings. But you also accept that that typos in such postings generally does not matter. Essentially Jeyamohan has to pay a price that you and I do not have to pay because he is a writer. That doesnt sound quite right to me.

I also feel that our differences as far as the propriety of includings one own novels in a top 10 list are irreconcilable. The apparent hubris makes you very angry. I interpret the same as pride in ones own work and the freedom to express it. I do not think that your value system should be imposed on Jeyamohan. Lets agree to disagree on this point.

â â,

¿¡ý ÀÄÓ¨È ±Ø¾¢Â¨¾ ¿£í¸û ºÃ¢Â¡¸ô ÀÊì¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚ ¿¢¨É츢§Èý. ¦ƒÂ§Á¡¸É¢ý «îº¢¼ôÀð¼ Ò¾¢Éí¸Ç¢ø ±ØòÐô À¢¨Æ ÁÄ¢ó¾¢Õ츢ÈÐ. ¾¢ñ¨½ìÌ «Å÷ ±Ø¾¢Â ¸ðΨâø ±ØòÐô À¢¨Æ ¯ûÇÐ. «Åü¨Èò ¾ðÎôÀ¢¨Æ ±ýÚ ´Ðì¸ ÓÊ¡Ð. ´üÚôÀ¢¨Æ¸û ¾ý ±Øò¾¢ø *ÕôÀ¨¾ «Å§Ã ²üÚì ¦¸¡û¸¢È¡÷. ±Øò¾¡Çý, «¾¢Öõ ¾Á¢Æ¸ò¾¢ý ¾¨Äº¢Èó¾ ±Øò¾¡Çý ±ýÈ Àð¼õ ÝðÊì ¦¸¡ûÙõ ÓýÉ÷, *Ä츽ô À¢¨Æ¢øÄ¡Áø ´Õ Àì¸Á¡ÅÐ ±Ø¾ò ¦¾Ã¢ó¾¢Õì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÀÐ ±ÉÐ ¸ÕòÐ.

«§¾ §À¡ø ¾ý¨Éò¾¡§É ¯Â÷ò¾¢ì ¦¸¡ûŨ¾ò ¾¨Äì¸ÉÁ¡¸ ÁðΧÁ ¸Õи¢§Èý. §ÅÚ *¨Æ¢ø ¿¡ý ÍðÊ ¦¾ñÎø¸Ã¢ý §¿÷¸¡½Ä¢ý ¸¨¼º¢ô Àò¾¢¨Â ¿£í¸û ÀÊò¾£÷¸Ç¡? ¾¡ý ¯Ä¸¢ý ¾¨Äº¢Èó¾ Áð¨¼Å£Ãý ±ýÚ ±ñ½¢É¡Öõ («øÄÐ ¬¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚ Å¢ÕõÀ¢É¡Öõ) «¨¾ ¯ÄÌìÌô À¨Èº¡üÈ¢ì ¦¸¡ûž¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢Õ츢ȡ÷. «¨¾ò¾¡ý ÅûÙÅÕõ

"À½¢ÔÁ¡õ ±ýÚõ ¦ÀÕ¨Á º¢Ú¨Á
«½¢ÔÁ¡õ ¾ý¨É Å¢ÂóÐ"

±ý¸¢È¡÷. ÀÊô§À¡÷¸Ùõ ²¨É À¨¼ôÀ¡Ç¢¸Ùõ ¦ƒÂ§Á¡¸É¢ý ±Øò¨¾ µ§¸¡ ±ýÚ Ò¸úó¾¡ø ²üÚì ¦¸¡ûÇÄ¡õ. ¬É¡ø, §ÅÚ Â¡Õõ ¦º¡øÄ¡Á§Ä§Â, ±Øò¾¡Çý ¾ý¨Éò¾¡§É ¾¨Äº¢Èó¾Åý ±ýÚ ¦º¡øĢ즸¡ñÎ ¾¢Ã¢ÅÐ "̨È̼õ Üò¾¡Îõ" ±ýÈ ÀƦÁ¡Æ¢ìÌ ±ÎòÐì ¸¡ð¼¡ö «¨Á¸¢ÈÐ.

±ØòÐô À¢¨Æ¸Ùõ, *Ä츽ô À¢¨Æ¸Ùõ, ¦º¡üÌüÈí¸Ùõ, ¦À¡Õð ÌüÈí¸Ùõ ÁÄ¢óÐ ¸¢¼ìÌõ «¨Ą̃Èô À¨¼ôÒ¸û º¢ÄÅü¨È ¯Õš츢ÂÅÕìÌò ¾ý ÀðÊÂÄ¢ø ӾĢÃñÎ *¼í¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ÎòÐì ¦¸¡ñ¼Ð ¾¡ú×½÷¨Âì ¸¡ðθ¢È§¾ «ýÈ¢ô ÒĨÁî ¦ºÕ쨸ÂøÄ. "*óÐ §¿ºý" ¿¨¼¨Â §Åñ¼¡¾ *¼í¸Ç¢ø ¾¢½¢òÐ ±ØÐÀÅÕìÌ "«õÒÄ¢Á¡Á¡" ¿¨¼¦ÂýÚ ¸ø¸¢¨Âò ¾¢ÈÉ¡ö× ¦ºöÔõ ¾Ì¾¢Â¢ø¨Ä.

±ÉÐ ¦¿È¢Ó¨È¸¨Ç ¦ƒÂ§Á¡¸É¢ý §Áø ¾¢½¢ì¸ ¿¡ý ¡÷? "À¢ÃÀÄÁ¡É" ±Øò¾¡Ç÷ ¾ÉÐ Ò¸¨Æô ÀÂýÀÎò¾¢ ¿Î¿¢¨Äò ¾¢ÈÉ¡öÅ¡Çáöô §À¡Ä¢ §Å¼õ âñÎ ¾ý¨É ²üÈ¢ì ¦¸¡ûÅÐ «üÀò¾ÉÁ¡É Å¢ÇõÀÃõ ±ýÀÐ À¢Èó¾ ÌÆó¨¾ìÌìܼô ÒâÔõ.

¬É¡ø, *¦¾øÄ¡õ §¸¡Ä¡î ͨÅô§À¡ðÊ §À¡ýÈ ¦ÅðÊô §ÀîÍ. ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ãõ §À÷ܼ Å¡í¸¢ô ÀÊ측¾ *ó¾ áø ¦ÅÌ Å¢¨ÃÅ¢ø ÁÈì¸ô ÀðÎÅ¢Îõ. ÒШÁô À¢ò¾É¢ý ±Øò¨¾ìܼò §¾¡ñÊ ±ÎòÐò¾¡ý À¢¨Æì¸ §ÅñÊ¢Õ츢ÈÐ. ¬É¡ø, ¸ø¸¢Â¢ý ±ØòÐì¸û «Å÷ Á¨ÈóÐ 46 ¬ñθû ¸¼ó¾ À¢ýÛõ «îº¢Ä¢ÕóÐ ¦¸¡ñ§¼ ¯ûÇÉ. À¡Ã¾¢Ôõ ¸ø¸¢Ôõ º¡¸¡ÅÃõ ¦ÀüÈÅ÷¸û. «Å÷¸û ±ØòÐ츨ÇÅ¢¼ò ¾ý¦ÉØòÐ ¯Â÷ó¾Ð ±ýÚ ¦º¡øÄ¢ì ¦¸¡ûÀŨÃô À¡÷ò¾¡ø

¸¡É Á¢ġ¼ì ¸ñÊÕó¾ Å¡ý§¸¡Æ¢
¾¡Ûõ «ÐÅ¡¸ô À¡Å¢òÐò ¾¡Ûó¾ý
¦À¡øÄ¡î º¢È¨¸ Ţâò¾¡ÊÉ¡ü §À¡Ö§Á
¸øÄ¡¾¡ý ¸üÈ ¸Å¢

±ýÈ ¶¨Å¡÷ ¦ÅñÀ¡ ¿¢¨É×ìÌ ÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ.