 |
|
|
|
|
Literary criticism considered to be the bridge between the writer and the reader. Does it play its role in optimum? What is the present state of our literary sphere? To which direction are we going? Two writers, one from Sinhala and the other an English literati reveal their points of view, this time in ‘Face 2 Face’. 1. What is the present state of local literary criticism? Erawwala Nandimithra : As I see, very rarely one can find healthy criticism. I don’t think constructive criticism is applied to literary creations. I believe it is simply because we do not have a encouraging background supporting such healthy literary criticism. To be able to criticise at such a level one need to be fully aware of every point of the literary sphere and must be dedicated to the task. In the present context we cannot find competent people with that much of capacity. Malinda Seneviratne: There is a lot to be aspired. Currently, nothing much has been done
in the field of literary criticism. In any country the literature sphere
is very small and when it comes to our country it is even smaller. So
the people in the circle are known to each other. Hence, some are scared
of being criticised and to criticise they will be subjected to jealous
and vicious attacks. 2. Do you think it is holding on to favouritism or antagonism? Erawwala Nandimithra : It is a contributory factor but not the only one for this down turn. Just see how much we have distanced and ourselves from reading and writing. Some years back we were able to sell at least three thousand copies but now we print only hundred copies and even that is not easily sold. Even the libraries islandwide are not interested in buying new books. The number of people interested in books is dwindling rapidly. It has been found difficult to broaden this aspect of reading within the society. We must understand that the ambit of literature needs to grow and expand in par with the other developments of the world. Malinda Seneviratne: Our culture is such we tend to be nice to others. But when it comes
to literary criticism then you are inflating the author and misleading
the reader. One can see this by observing the book launches. A book
launch can be the ideal place for a book critic or a review. Instead
what happens is just praising the author by his friend or group of
friends being invited. This is not what should happen. The criticism or
arguments should continue while carrying on a friendship. We need that
kind of a high level engagement. Critics seems to be feeling bad about
constructively criticising a book and the author. The book should be
criticised because that does not belongs to the writer, it belongs to
the reader. 3) In your point of view,what is constructive criticism? Erawwala Nandimithra : For example if we take the criticism of short stories the critic must focus on what is really a short story, how creative it is or what is the novelty it is projecting. Writing should be based on real life experiences and at the some time it must provide should sort of joy to the reader. Malinda Seneviratne: I have not studied literature deeply. The structure of that
particular poem, novel or whatever the creation, must be analysed
thoroughly. The use of words, rhythm and all the respective literary
values should be taken into consideration. The novelty of that creation
is important. It should be new; one can’t steal from the previous
creations. It is unethical though some get away very smartly. And the
message the writer is trying to convey. We must keep in mind - a poem, a
piece of writing does not belong to the writer it belong to the
readers’. So, what the writer is trying to give to the reader should be
analysed to see whether it is a good creative piece or a bad one. One
should be honest in criticising. In the present setting, do you think constructive criticism will turn out to be practical? Erawwala Nandimithra : We also lack the necessary background. It has become very difficult to print and publish a classical book review in the present social background. We have lost the sources of encouragement. At times even the publishers won’t come forward to print such books because of the difficulty in selling. We can’t blame them also. And in the present social situation a person cannot dedicate himself or herself to this deep and broad subject. Even the papers don’t publish elaborate reviews. At least is limited to a few words. Malinda Seneviratne: Definitely. Apart from being scared to criticise another people are lazy to take the effort to do such an elaborate analysis. How many journalists are there in the newspaper field who can write a decent book review. Very very few. Many others are just pretenders. A reviewer cannot pick and choose. He or she should be able to review a book irrespective of the author. Compared to other countries why does Sri Lankan’s criticism seem to be poorly developed? Erawwala Nandimithra : Last year several writers from South Asian countries too discussed this very same problem. They have also faced the same tragedy. Anywhere in the world the readership is getting limited. People have many other interesting fields to engage in themselves. In one of the lectures, Prof. Wimal Dissanayake described ten different ways of criticism. Then I questioned about the situation in the western world especially, the United States. He said even in such countries literary criticism is limited to the academics only. He talked out of his own experience. Malinda Seneviratne: I really cannot answer that question because one thing my exposure is
only in the United States. Even then few would bother to read reviews
that are published in well known magazines and newspapers. In any
country the readership is always small. In Sri Lanka since we do not
have a huge population comparatively, our readership is even smaller.
But culturally we have habit of story telling. We used to listen to
‘Jathaka katha’ and these are stories. So we have a story telling
culture. When the book festivals are taking place millions of books are
being sold. So people have not lost the reading culture. Quality of
books they buy is questionable but they want to buy books. Where did we go wrong? Erawwala Nandimithra : I cannot blame anyone directly. Basically, the removal of such subjects as history and literature from school curriculum cannot be justified. Even we were encouraged in our schooldays to read the world class literature as well as our own books. This was a great encouragement for us to continue the habit of reading up to date. We are not born with high literal knowledge. We need encouragement, we need a background to start with. It is mostly from the school - more than the family. But today even the teachers are not interested in reading or writing. The Literary festivals in schools do not give the proper place for literature. They are only interested in dancing, music and all other forms of entertainment. Any way we cannot lead the entire society towards the direction of literature. Malinda Seneviratne: I think academics have been the biggest culprits. They are trained to
teach and criticise good creations and bad ones. But they are not doing
that. They are the people who should be guiding the reader. They are not
giving their maximum effort. Once I remember Liyanage Amarakeerthi said
the University system produces around 50 English special graduates per
year. They are not given the skills to review the Sinhala and Tamil
literature. Do they try to appreciate the literal traditions of their
own language? How many translations do they do? This is because we have
a strong colonial make up. If the book is written in English and
published by a well known English publisher and of course the writer
lives abroad then there seems to be more acceptance towards it. We do
not value the writings in Sinhala, which I find some are far superior.
These were not analyzed, appreciated properly and simply because they
were written in Sinhala they do not get highlighted in the international
level. This is a one of the biggest flaws in our society. What matters
in any creation is its level of quality. Even those who can, they do not
talk about them. Why is literal criticism so important? What is the role it has to play in the literal world? Erawwala Nandimithra : There are three major pillars we find in literature - the writer, the reader and the critic. The critic holds a significant position between the reader and the writer. He is the one who bridges the gap. At times a reader may not be able to grasp all what the writer tries to say. This is where the critics role plays its part. Criticism is beneficial to the writer as well because it heavily supports the writer to improve his creativity. A critic is a person who has a broader sense of knowledge on literature. So he compares a piece of writing with the rest of the literary world. Hence, he is able to find the writer’s strong points and failures. This is highly beneficial to the writer as well as to the literary field. A real critic can be very strong - willed and of solid character in the literature field. Malinda Seneviratne: One thing it can create a good reader. So cultivating a discerning
reader is the responsibility of the literary critic. A literal piece
should be able to stand the phase of time. That quality should be
highlighted. A good constructive criticism can make people think.
Different people may find different flaws. When the reader is able to go
through all these criticisms many windows are open to him at once. This
may at times confuse the guy but it is better to have windows than not
to have. The writer has to sell his work of art. Even if he is not
interested in money he is interested in appreciation. That is the
nature. The writer needs to bring out more creations and criticism can
improve the output of the writer. It contributes to the improvement of
the total literature field. 8) Is criticism the only failed point in literature? What about writers? Erawwala Nandimithra : I do not see any drawbacks in writers. The only problem I see is the quality of the work. We see enough quantities of literary pieces but we do not know the degree of their quality. But we must keep in mind that a highly skilled writers are a fast diminishing lot. Even I don’t consider myself as a good writer. When I compare myself with the giants in the field, I am just a minion. Malinda Seneviratne: Sense of self-identity in seeing one as English - ‘I have English therefore I am elite”, is the thinking. They won’t listen to Sinhala or Tamil people. Even the decision makers are of that nature. Just because one’s utopia is different from another one’s utopia does not mean his or her writings cannot be accepted. But just because of criticising the so called guardians of Sri Lankan English Literature certain writers will never be eligible to some of the literary awards. The reason is not of the failure of their creations but of the politics that is involved. This pettiness is not a good sign. |
|
