|
Creative works:
necessity for better assessment
 In the field of Sinhala literary works, one constantly hears and
reads, in the vein of a complaint, the gradual decadence of the literary
evaluation process. Even the prestigious state literary award system too
is challenged from time to time. Those who are said to be well versed
and said to have followed various literary criticism courses abroad say
that there is a gradual breakdown in the local evaluation systems. But
it looks as if a remedial measure is never hunted or left at lurch in
debate.
This debacle has come to a point that most literary artistes
strenuously engaged in the creative works, pass the verdict of
indifference on the part of the cultural authorities, especially the
State Evaluation Committees and those who are responsible for managing
the process.
In this direction it looks as if the public funds on cultural matters
are either wasted or not utilized properly for the welfare of the
society at large. In the name of literary progress on wonders what
actually happens. I had the chance to read a printed script of a lecture
delivered by a literary veteran of the Sahitya Mandalaya a few weeks
ago.
As I did not attend the lecture session, knowing well the futility of
the session, I got some time to read the text. For me it was a series of
hotchpotch play of 'isms' such as Marxist criticism, cultural criticism,
surrealism, post colonialism and postmodernism. It was an exhibition of
one's pseudo awareness of what is necessarily as literary criticism
today. The play of words, 'isms', goes on.
The university literary circles, where the young teachers lack a
sound understanding in what is happening at home and abroad, find it a
charming spellbound magical medicine and a panacea. This goes on
irrespective of the necessity. Coming on to the area of interest laid on
the Marxist literary criticisms, it should be noted that it is only an
approach not even laid down by Marx himself.
 Marx never wanted to denounce any merits of human experiences
expressed in the most subtle manner. For example he was one great
political thinker who declared that his most appreciative literary
creation Aeschylus' play Prometheus Bound. This he expressed as a single
human experience of the great struggle of the humans and the so called
super humans in the battle to obtain a flame of fire for daily work.
Marx was a literary thinker, and the concept is elaborated in a work
titled 'necessity of art' written by an Argentinean critic named Ernest
Fischer.
This volume of literary essays interconnected paves the way to
understanding the standpoint of the creator and his creative work, may
it be a poem, story, sculpture, painting or any other artwork.
It is the necessity of a creation that matters in the ultimate
evaluation. But do we have such a process? To the best of my
understanding, it is a mere parroting of alien terms that had come to
stay in the local literary scene.
An ongoing discourse not to combat but to discuss the pros and cons
of this pseudo approach is needed. One may wonder why one should say
that the literary criticism has a breakdown. It is simply not a
breakdown but the failure to introduce in the educational frame of
literature and allied subjects. The availability of books on literary
criticism is scarce.
We still find it interesting to go through the pages of Professor
Ediriweera Sarachchandra's works such as Sahitya Vidayava and Kalpana
Lokaya. They happened to be the seminal books written on literary
criticism. This was followed by the two books written by Professor
Hemapala Wijewardhana. They are Sanskruta Kavya Vicharaye Muladharma and
Kavya Vicharaya. The former is an exponent on the oriental methods of
literary criticism drawn from Sanskrit rhetoric called Rasa Vadaya.
Perhaps time has come to rediscover this text in the light of new
criticism.
The question arises as to whether the literary criticism is geared to
the ultimate aesthetic appreciation and the evaluation that culminates.
The response is positively the lack of training in the aesthetic
approach. A better truth emerges to the standpoint of the teaching of
literature at the college level and university level of education. How
is poetry taught? How are narratives taught? How is theatre taught?
I sincerely feel that it is not a breakdown but the failure to
introduce from a seminal stages of teaching. Those who have passed out
as graduates from universities ultimately engage in the teaching
positions. But what do they teach? The question has to be approached
from various points. Even the rediscovery of aspect of Orientalism is
observed as unnecessary.
As such, various forms of discourses in an alien manner emerge in a
discursive pattern. So the necessity to remould the structure of
teaching literary criticism shall be reckoned as a necessity. This was
experimental in the 1960s by my own English lecturer late Professor A M
G Sirimanne, in his pioneer attempt to introduce this methodology of the
practical criticism. As discussions arose he designed several other
texts such as Vichara Marga Sansandanaya (comparative ways in
criticism).
He wanted his students to apply the theories into practical
creations. As a result, a compilation of poems was published for the
alternative literary enthusiast of the days. This came to be known as
Vichara Kavi. I am not sure if the compilation was well received, but we
observed the impact of the creative stance in each of us, including mine
as a subscriber.
On second thoughts, today I feel that my mentor Sirimanna was
correct, while most seniors and contemporaries who live today are
neither honest nor correct in their attitudes. They merely parrot things
they are incapable of grasping.
[email protected]
|
