Awards and benefits
I take the cue from the most outstanding scientist cum pioneer in the
field of mass communication, Dr Harold D Lasswell. He was the first
scientist who tried to define the term ‘communication’ as ‘who says what
in which channel for what effect?’ This happened back in 1948. He was
trying to interpret the World War propaganda in terms of understanding
the meaning as a total effect. Since then Lasswell’s definition took
roots in various allied fields in social sciences.
Today we try to use the same in humanities and social sciences by way
of evaluating a particular work of literature. But Lasswell’s definition
has to be rephrased to suit socio-cultural standpoint. The variation of
Lasswell is the latest question raised by a certain literary enthusiast
as he tried to evaluate the benefits and effects of literary and
creative works such as drama, poetry, short story and novel.
The person who stood before me raised a pertinent question: “Did you
read the novel which won the State Award for literature?”
“Yes certainly.” I said.
Then a discourse ensued between us. Both of us had no clue as to why
this particular novel was awarded the State Literary Award. The
inevitable question arises as to how a creative work could be assessed.
Is it just a consensus of likings and/or dislikings that go into the
selection? Is there a series of laid down factors anywhere to seek
advice as regards the selection? These questions led us to discern the
answer to the question as raised by the critic Allen Tate. It goes as
‘Is literary criticism possible’
In Tate’s essay, a series of questions is raised as to how the
judgment procedure of criticism came down to centuries. He concludes:
“Literary criticism, like the kingdom of God on earth is perpetually
necessary and in the very nature of its middle position between
imagination and philosophy, perpetually impossible like a man, literary
criticism is nothing in itself; criticism like man, embraces pure
experience or exalts pure rationality at the price of abdication from
its dumb nature.
It is of the nature of man and of criticism to occupy the intolerable
position. Like man’s the intolerable position of criticism has it shown
glory. It is the only position that it is ever likely to have.”
Prior to this conclusive verdict, Tate gives us several factors which
kindle our critical faculty. He underlines the basic factor of
contradiction in terms of literary theories both in the West as well as
the East. The theories either contradict dependent on the cultural
issues or contradict in keeping with the access to a more favourable
practical theory.
As such the contradiction and disagreement is to be expected when one
tries to distinguish the aims and habits of literary critics over a
particular period of time. In our own context I firmly believe that a
scientific approach had not been laid down by way of an accepted canon
of literary criticism. As a result who makes the literary judgment is a
perpetual debate and gives way to much controversies such as banality
and alienation.
Some accept that though the rasa theory or the oriental literary
theories are profound and philosophical it tends to overshadow the
essential practical factors such as evaluation and aesthetic judgment.
Then on the other hand the scholars who try to apply the occidental
literary theories such as the practical criticism and more modern post
modernistic approaches tend to undermine the subtle layers of human
experiences.
Coming back to our subject of selecting creative works via literary
criticism and the possibility of the same, the conceptual frame remains
rather personal and misunderstood. The average reader asks the question:
“How transparent are the criteria used in the selection of creative
works?”
‘Transplant’ too remains obscure and misunderstood. The Literary
Panel members may stress their own transparency in the discussion
process of the selection. But the primary question of the degree of
transparency remains to be queried.
Perhaps as I understand from the essay of Tate, about which I have
this highest regard, the more systematic and methodical the discussion
becomes, the tendency is to be aloof from the central question addressed
to the possibility of the selection based on the methodology applied.
Then emerges the question of the suitability and the eligibility of each
of the members who so selected to discuss and arrive at an ultimate
judgment.
One member may discuss his stance from the point of view of his
favourite subject. Say, for instance, the use of language. Another may
tend to leave aside that area and stress the human experience embedded
in the work.
One more person may disregard all these aspects and look at it from
an alternative point of view of much hackneyed and misconstrued concepts
of modernisms. In this manner the suitability and diversity of the
calibre of judges become an issue. Perhaps depending on all these
aspects a better perspective would be to be large hearted and select
more works as against a single selected work.
I have a whole heap of award winning works written in Sinhala and
English on my table. From time to time, I take them one by one to seek
the values via which they gained the state of being the award winners.
This time too I took time off from my schedule to read the Sinhala novel
which won the state award for best fiction.
But to my grave dismay it was disappointing from various points of
view. Prevailing the human content was quite obsolete resting on the
type of novels churned by James Michener like for instance ‘Sayonara’
and the advent of the old man who with riches bestows the hour of a
paramour like in the case of Mason’s ‘Wind Cannot Read’.
Over a period of time, the human experiences have changed. The
responsibility of a sensitive creator is to capture the nuances of the
change to mould his or her techniques of narration by way of giving new
insights.
This point of view is totally absent from the work. My intention here
is not to present my views on the work, but to express the bleak
literary climate with which we are forced to exist. All I wish to
suggest is to formulate a serious literary discourse on the subject of
our stance in contemporary literary scene. Is that possible? I wonder.
[email protected] |
