Invasive plant emerges among the grass :

A personal odyssey in search of true love

by Ranga CHANDRARATHNE

Kathleen Jayawardene is the author of ‘Sathya Kama’, a novel widely held as a tour de force in contemporary Sinhala literature. The novel is set against Buddha’s time in India where many important philosophical discussions were carried out amidst unprecedented economic prosperity. The protagonist in the novel is on a journey of discovery the true meaning of love. The novel is marked for its refined language with no mistakes in grammar and masterly depiction of nature and Buddha’s time in India.

Kathleen Jayawardene: author of Sathyakama

“Invasive plant emerged among the grass seemed to be on a journey running fast overpowering the blades of grass. It was because of the twinkling white flowers here and there that one could see that invasive play running up embracing Devadara trees in the moonlight. Like the fog that gathered and dispersed, thoughts of the past dispersed and gathered again.” “The lake is silent. Lake’s water is placid.” It would not be disturbed if not for the external influence. This is why placid lake is different from meandering river.

He saw his reflection through the tiny fishes that swam without disturbing the water. The scene tends to baffle him with gripping fear and deep sadness. On the very moment, he thought of how Samujja saw him. Water possessed demon..?

- Satyakama.

One of the prominent features of the novel is the author’s ability to articulate profound philosophical thoughts in a lucid and straightforward and unpretentious language. It is evident from the photographic description of the era. The author has captured the socio-economic milieu of Buddha’s time and the inner social life of the society. Philosophical thinking is interspersed with magnificent descriptions of nature which also sychoronised with changing moods of the traveller Sathyakama. From the beginning to the end, the journey is a discovery of truth. The author discusses the true meaning of love whether it is only a strong physical bondage or whether there a spiritual element to it.

Her enunciation is self-effacing and most suited to the theme. Her style of writing in Satyakama stands out for genuine sequence and apt dialogues which have become an integral part of characters.

Since the delivery of descriptions and dialogues has been sparingly used, they are at no point stifle the interest of the reader and are in perfect harmony with literary theories. Application of literary theory is one of the prominent criteria in evaluating literary productions throughout the world.

The writer is one who expands the horizons of colloquial idiom and introduces new usages and phraseology into the circulation.

All characteristics of Kathleen’s writings prove that she is one of the gifted writers.

Here is an exclusive interview with Kathleen Jayewardene on literary scene and criteria adapted by award committees.

Q: In your opinion how do you define literary creation?

A: From time to time, scholars have given diverse definitions for the process of literary creations.

However, invariably literary creator or a writer should also be an avid reader. It is a necessary criterion. He or she should go through that process of reading and appreciating literature before embarking upon a career in writing. Even after becoming a writer, it is also essential for a writer to practise the craft regularly, perhaps, with insight.

The writer is also a kind of critic. He or she should be a keen observer of the environment and of course, of the human behaviour.

At the same time, the writer should also cultivate the skill of deriving inspiration from secondary experiences such as the experiences of the others and use them for creative writing.

What I believe is that the writer should cultivate an inquisitive mind as well as he should be a bit sceptical about what he observes. In this regard, individual issues are of paramount importance. At times, the writer himself confronts actual problems.

The writer should inquire into the nexus between man and the process of thinking, psychology analysis plays an important role in this regard. For instance, Psychologist such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung have explored how forces dormant in the subconscious affect the behavioral patterns of man. Buddhism also explains such functions in the subconscious of beings. For a writer, it is important to study those psychological factors, diverse states of mind and to arrive at independent conclusions and interpretations. Since mere finding out causes for them alone would not be sufficient, a writer should be a creator of new concepts and perceptions.

Therefore, the writer should set new traditions and novel interpretations that spring from his pen. I firmly believe that it is essential for a writer to acquire and posses, at least, some knowledge of philosophy and he should be capable of interpreting them. It is because that writing is not merely engaging in an exercise of reporting. For instance, when one heard of a gruesome murder, the picture that emerges in mind is of the ruthless murderer. That is on the very instance of the murder which we have either seen or heard of as a brutal act. Everyone of us will agree irrespective of circumstances, that one has absolutely no right to take someone else’s life.

However, on the reflection of the state of mind of the murderer before committing the act and the process of subsequent thinking on the part of the murderer, that rather gloomy picture would tend to fade away. This is amply evident in masterpieces of literature such as Leo Tolstoy’s ‘Kreutzer Sonata’. In the story, a husband confesses on the murder of his wife.

Like the above instances, the creator should thoroughly examine his experiences and reflect on them. Unless the creator is thoroughly immersed in the character, he will not be able to produce a successful piece of writing. Once Tolstoy stated that writer’s work becoming a great work or ignorable piece of writing is dependent on the sincerity of purpose of the writer.

Q: On examination of your literary work, some observe an apparent tilt towards Buddhist psychology. Does that mean that you always draw inspiration from Buddhism?

A: As I told you earlier, the creator is a keen observer of the environment. Let us think in this manner. In the morning the sun rises and in the evening it goes down. Flowers blossom and fade away in the evening. Whether one may like it or not this is what actually happens. In other words, this is the law of nature. In this real life scenario, we observe the principles of impermanency and constant change at work. No one can deny that. Whenever writer comes out with this, the critic would say that he subscribes to the Buddhist point of view. I am really cannot help it. When I am engaged in creative writing and describing the nature and the world at large, my views may be akin to those held in the philosophy of Buddhism. It is something which I cannot avoid.

Q: There were several instances where you had expressed your dismay at the culture of literary criticism in the country and the evaluation of literary works especially by diverse evaluating bodies for awards. Are you totally rejecting the criticisms and conclusions arrived at?

A: It is my view that critics in general very often impose their views without supporting their arguments. Often they exploit the authority they enjoy in society. However, the public, today, is in a position to see through such evaluations aimed at meeting their own ends and evaluations based on unholy alliances and cronyism. This often happens. The evaluations failed to adapt wide ranging criteria for arriving at judgments.

This position has been explored well in a critical essay entitled ‘An Essay on Criticism’ which has recently been translated into Sinhala by Prof. A.V. Suraweera. In the chapter ‘Value and Criteria’ this position has been articulated. It states “The only criterion that could be made use of for judgment of a literary work apart from the time it had enjoyed the respect of the people is the common sense regard of readership not tainted by the passing literary likes and dislikes. I believe that readership in the country are above both the writer and the critic in terms of literary sensibility. It is the readership who will, ultimately, foolproof the contemporary culture of criticism as well as the verdict on literary products.

Q: So what are your suggestions to improve the quality and composition of literary evaluation bodies?

A: In ideal scenario, the Literary Evaluation Bodies (LEB) should be a place where experts from diverse fields of literature, persons of divergent views and of different age meet. Such an LEB should also be made up of those who appreciate, for instance, classical literature, latest literary trends such as surrealism and even those who draw material from witchcraft.

New ideals emerge from a clash of such divergent ideas and views. What really has become of LEB? Those who were appointed to LEB would get their friends and evaluate the literary work at their whims and fancies.

There is hardly any oppositional views and dissenting opinion expressed. It is questionable that how many of those in LEB are conversant with the latest literary trends? Very often, these panellists belong to the same school of thinking. Against such a backdrop, how could fair judgments emerge from the LEB?