 |
| Samuel Beckett by Javad Alizadeh |
Literature is meant to show what
life is as understood by the writer. Life is a complex affair which has no
intrinsic meaning. Meaning is created by each one of us. The meaning each one
of us gives to it depends on our psychological and intellectual make-up, our
experiences, inclinations, attitudes – a whole range of things. Writers too
have their own unique individualities consisting of this range of things which
prompt them to see life in certain ways rather than others. The meaning seen by
Shakespeare is not the meaning seen by Samuel Beckett. Yet both Shakespeare and
Beckett continue to find fans even today. Both inspire people to perceive the
meaning of life in their own particular ways.
Joseph Conrad’s novels show us
that society is as corrupting as it is necessary. Society inevitably gives us
material interests which in turn corrupt our very souls. But solitude is not
the solution; it results in destruction of the self. Idealism is not a solution
either; idealism corrupts too.
Conrad and other writers of
any eminence don’t preach us any morality. They show us life as they see it. They
show the essentially tragic nature of human existence, its inevitable
corruptibility. Some writers see the tragedy more clearly than some others who are
struck by the sheer absurdity of human existence. Many of our contemporary writers
are struck by the blatant farcicality of human life. Tragedy might be better
than the farce that we are condemned to endure nowadays.
There is no morality in it –
tragedy, comedy or farce – except the morality you bring. Literature is not moral
science class. Literature is the theatre where the drama of life unfolds
artistically. It is art, not morality, not spirituality, not pious sentiments.
Hamlet created his morality by killing his own mother and uncle because their
fraudulence merited death in Hamlet’s moral vision which was as blurred as
anyone’s in the beginning. Hamlet learns morality, his morality.
We have to learn our own
morality and literature helps us to do that. That is the most fundamental
purpose of literature: to make us see life more clearly, understand it, and
then shape our moral vision. Shape, not teach. Literature provides the fire
required for the imagination to undergo the required melting. Literature is the
forge.
The process is quite similar
to what religions try to achieve. Religions try to give us spiritual
experiences which in turn can transmute us into nobler creatures. Literature
tries to give us imaginative experiences which in turn will do the
transmutation. Literature probably has done its job better than religions and
gods so far.
PS. This is
written in response to Indispire Edition 344: Do you look for a moral in
every story? Share any story. #StoryTime.
I haven’t been able to do justice to the entire theme. My profession, which has
gone completely online, consumes so much of me sometimes that my hobby of
writing becomes a casualty. I will continue with this in the next post which has
acquired in my mind the title ‘The Literature of the Gayatri Mantra’.
As a little kid in convent school we had a subject Moral Science full of stories with Morals.This led me to discern the moral in any story. Even after reading Enid Blyton I could easily tell that she does support some type of behaviour, and not all.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up I realized, that there are two types of stories. One is only written to explain us a point like panchatantra or moral stories of my school. The second is beautifully written stories with a subtle agenda. The second works better in the long term.
No author can avoid putting their own views into a story. It's just that good authors know to manipulate us without our knowing. They write so well that we don't even realise why we are rooting for a particular idea/ character, which we don't really like. Yes, a good author shows us real world, just as he wants us to see it.
So, stories might not teach you morality directly like moral science stories, but they do inculcate morals into us. Here morals don't mean the morality preached, but values which can mean good or bad according to people's perception.
I agree with you. In fact, I have said more or less the same thing in different words. My problem is with people who insist on literary writers preaching directly. Nowadays you can see that popular writers do it and get away with it too. Bloggers do it most of the time. Popular bloggers are just preachers and, worse, propagandists.
DeleteI agree with you, but I can't blame other bloggers because I'm also guilty of the same. Most of the time, I write what I want to say straightforward. But that comes with a high risk of getting caught in trolling debates. So, sometimes I write a tiny story instead of articles. Most of the trolls don't really get the moral of the story, so they leave it alone. Though there are times, when I have been schooled by the people whose actions I supported. Perhaps that is because they think since I'm not on their side, I must be criticising their every action.
DeleteI never do it when I write my actual stories, just when I convert my articles to stories. But, I can't claim high ground on the preaching subject.
Sorry for such a long comment. Maybe I should have written a blog on the topic instead of answering here. But if I deleted the comment, the comment doesn't disappear, just the content does.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, literature transmutes a lot better than religion ever can.
Thanks, Kiran. It's good you commented. Few people bother to say anything substantial these days.
DeleteAnd very few read anything.
DeleteThere are more writers today ")
DeleteTrue, even my comment is proof of that. Though I basically agreed with you, I wrote four paras instead of a line. Have a wonderful day!
DeleteWish you were my literature teacher in school. Your in depth analysis of literature and its various nuances and impact on our lives is an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteDelighted to get this compliment from you, a teacher yourself. I just finished my online class with class 11 and digressed into Arundhati Roy's Ministry of Utmost Happiness and realised with a shock that I went a bit too beyond the level of class 11 with Anjum's [the protagonist] neutral gender and the novel's issues. But the students have always liked my digressions. I too enjoy them more than the class texts.
Deletesorry friends. Literature has originated fron the thoughts of a single person and based upon his on passions toward the life and his experience in it.
ReplyDeleteBut religion with all its drawbacks is formed in this present form from the experiences of so many eminent personalities and changing accordingly.
So I feel religions do better than literature.
If you study the back ground of the prominent wrtters, their passions are formulated ftom the bad experiences they had. And not formulatedby the passions of so many
Ifeel most of the prominent writters are failure in their personal life
Why so anti-literature, BS? Don't forget that many of your saints were great writers too: Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Merton, Thomas a Kempis, Thomas Moore... [I wonder why Thomases chose to lead my list.] Just think of G M Hopkins, poet and monk, who asked young Margaret why she was grieving over Goldengrove's unleaving. Decadence is the blight that man is born for, says this Catholic priest-poet.
DeleteWell, to cut the story short, both religion and literature can make people good. I have already mentioned it in the post. But religion seems to be an utter failure, killing more and more. Look at our own country today. In 21st century we're still using some 5000-year-old myth for killing thousands of people or alienating them, stealing their lands in the name of holy cows. That's religion. Literature never does such things.
I don't kuow how it happened.. My posting came as unknown. (Sorry frieds. Literature..........)
ReplyDeleteBaby Sebastian
You must have chosen the anonymous option while posting the comment.
DeleteYour first line says it all - Literature is meant to show what life is as understood by the writer. Yes, as understood by the writer and definitely not as understood by the reader. That's why many great literary works have been / are bitterly criticized and the writers have been / are misunderstood by certain readers because as you have again correctly asserted - Meaning is created by each one of us (namely, the readers). Morals are also individual takeaways of the readers because they interpret the thing they have read in the way they have grown-up and formed their thought. Very few literary things are capable enough to be termed as timeless and even many high quality literary things are also to be read and understood in the context of the time period in which they had been created. I feel that literature, howsoever good it might be, is not able to effectively change the thought-process of the grown-up ones. It can only affect and mold the thinking, attitude and personality of those in their tender years. All the same, I endorse your thought that literature has done its job better than religion and gods (despite the fact that bad, biased and poisonous literature is also available aplenty - at least in India - which has caused great harm to the society - again, at least in India).
ReplyDeleteLoved your detailed response which makes the point clearer. But I may disagree with you about the impact of literature on adults. I think adults are more influenced by it than youngsters. As a teacher, I observe that youngsters read pulp or romance more. Adults give preference to serious literature. Not many, of course. But serious readers are definitely affected by what they read.
DeleteI think this is a really good article. You make this information interesting and engaging. You give readers a lot to think about and I appreciate that kind of writing.
ReplyDeleteOur Services:
Digital marketing Company
Your post had me nodding my head along on practically each sentence. Literature is art, it is not meant to teach. "We have to learn our own morality and literature helps us to do that." Agree a 100%.
ReplyDeleteLiterature, or any form of art, isn't meant to teach but stir our thinking and imagination. How else would everyone have a different interpretation of it?
ReplyDeleteLiterature has truly taught us a lot, it is so amazing to see life from the perspective of various writers.
ReplyDeleteWell this is an interesting debate. I don’t really look for morals in a story consciously but maybe my subconscious does. Literature simply gives me knowledge and helps me in knowing various viewpoints. Ultimately I form my own opinion.
ReplyDelete