Literary criticism:

Complex responsive endeavour

In an exclusive interview with Montage, Prof. Wimal Dissanayake expresses his views on literary criticism in general and literary criticism on Sinhala writings in particular. Given the recent controversy over qualification of the so called judges in the award committees and their dubious selection of literary works for awards, the interview offers fresh and thought provoking views which are of lasting value in uplifting the literary criticism in Sri Lanka.

by Ranga CHANDRARATHNE

Q: We want to seek your wisdom and knowledge on literature, cinema and art and want to discuss on literary criticism in general and in particular on Sinhala writings, focusing on key issues and trends. How would you define literary criticism?

A: Literary criticism represents an important activity related to the understanding and evaluation of literary texts. T.S. Elliot once said that it is as common as breathing. However, good, insightful literary criticism is rare. What are the important steps in literary criticism? First we need to pay very close and sustained attention to the words on the page. This is what, for example, the New Criticism demanded. However, closer attention to words on the page by itself is not adequate. We saw the limitations of this approach in the efforts of those who practised New Criticism

In addition to the focus on the words on the page, we need to locate the given literary text in its proper social, cultural, political, ideological contexts. This demands great powers of acuity as well as historical understanding and cultural imagination. In addition, the critic must be able to uncover the ideological forces at play in a literary text. Fredric Jameson talked about the political unconsciousness of texts. Modern literary theorists refer to a form of literary criticism termed symptomatic reading. This constitutes an effort to read against the grain and uncover the ideological symptoms of a work.

Another important aspect, one that is largely neglected in modern literary theory, is the capacity to empathize, feel one's way into a text. The ancient Sanskrit theorists employed the term 'sahruda' to signal this attribute. So, literary criticism is a complex responsive endeavour that calls into play a plurality of forces, intentions, and aptitudes.

Q: What are the qualities of a good critic and could a creative writer also function as a critic?

A: As I stated earlier the ability to respond sensitively to the verbal texture of a given text to feel one's way into it, situate it in large social and historical patterns is essential for a critic. These qualities are also vital for creative writers. A good critic is a good reader. The Argentine writer Borges once remarked that good readers are rarer than good writers.

Traditionally, literary criticism has played an ancillary role to literary creativity. However, as a consequence of the work of modern literary theorists such as Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman, the idea of literary criticism has gained recognition. In addition, when you read the critical writings of a critic like George Steiner whose writing is marked by verve and poetic elegance, you begin to appreciate the creative potentialities associated with literary criticism.

Q: What are the major schools of criticism dominant at global level today?

A: There are many schools of literary criticism operative in the modern world. Among them Liberal Humanist Criticism, New Criticism, Phenomenology, Structuralism, Deconstruction, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, New Historicism, Cultural Studies, Feminist Studies, Postcolonial theory are extremely important.

Each school has its own preferred assumptions and approaches as well as strengths and limitations. Q: What are the dominant literary theories that have come up in age in recent decades making a global impact?

A: Among the dominant literary theories that have emerged in recent times and which have exerted a worldwide influence, I would include Deconstruction, Poststructuralism, New Historicism, Feminism and Postcolonial theory. When I travel in countries like India and China and Japan, these are the theories that seem to exercise the greatest impact on the academic imagination.

Q: These days we often hear about postcolonial theory or theories. Could you give us a brief summary and key literature in this regard?

A: Postcolonial theory has many faces. The most important face has a large Indian component. Literary theorists such as Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha, with whom I have had the good fortune to have extended discussions, have shaped Postcolonial theory in important and complex ways.

Postcolonial theory seeks to understand the impact of colonialism on textual production and the way issues of representations operate in postcolonial societies.

When we discuss Postcolonialism, the central text that invited our attention is Edward Said's treatise "Orientalism". Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, it demonstrated vividly how knowledge and power are intertwined and how European powers through misrepresentations and de-valorizations of oriental peoples sought to control and dominate them. In recent times, Postcolonial theory has become a growth industry generating in the process its own forbidding jargon. There are literally thousands of PhD thesis being written at this very moment in North America using the analytical techniques and critical lexicon associated with postcolonial theory. Postcolonial theory has opened up several important avenues of inquiry. It has also created its own pitfalls.

Q: Could western scholars who are not acquainted with Eastern literary theories, such as "rasa" or features of major poetics of ancient poets like Kalidasa's work such as Raghuvamsha ("Dynasty of Raghu") and 'Kumarasambhava' ("Birth of the War God"), as well as the lyrical "Meghaduta" ("Cloud Messenger") could come out with theories with universal values?

A: You raise a very important question. Western literary theorists, without an adequate understanding of say 'rasa vada' or 'dhavani vada' can produce theoretical texts that can claim to universality. As a matter of fact, what has happened is that Western theorists seek to give a universal applicability what are principally outgrowths of Eurocentric modes of thinking and feeling.

It is indeed a great shame, that not only Western critics but also Asian critics are increasingly becoming victims of a kind of cultural amnesia. They seem to forget or choose to ignore the rich store house of Asian creative and critical texts. Indian, Chinese, Japanese literary traditions merit close attention.

Q: Could you give us a brief overview of the evolution of Sinhala literary criticism and their relevance to examine modern Sri Lankan writings?

A: The two commanding influences in the emergence of modern Sinhala literary criticism were Ediriweera Sarachchandra and Martin Wickremasinghe. Sarachchandra sought to combine the cumulative wisdoms of Sanskrit aesthetics and New Criticism. He was responsible for clearing a pathway for evaluation and modern novels. He invoked the concepts of believability, an aspect of realism, and psychological complexity, in his endeavour. He was much influenced by liberal humanistic thinking and analytical philosophy.

Martin Wickremasinghe, on the other hand, thought in terms of a Sinhala form of criticism that drew on Buddhist texts and Buddhist humanism. He took a broadly culturalist approach to the understanding of literature. Very early on, he saw the value of anthropology as a significant field of exploration and an important gateway to understand culturally-grounded textual meaning.

Sarachchandra was a professor at Peradeniya and he influenced the thinking of many students there including myself. There emerged what is broadly referred to as the Peradeniya School of criticism. In later years the idea of people's literature gained ground. It was influenced by Marxist thinking. In recent times there have been attempts to apply newer theories of literature such as Postmodernism not with conspicuous success. What is needed today is a form of criticism that while being sensitive to the verbal structures of texts is equally alert to the historical and social forces inflecting texts. In this regard. Gunadasa Amarasekera's books such as "Abuddassa Yugayak" and "Nosevna Kadapatha" are extremely illuminating.

Q: Could we have universal literary theories that are applicable to any work, anywhere, anytime?

A: You can have universal theories of literature. However, they would be so abstract and so removed from the historical and cultural life of texts that their value would be limited. Of course, there are broad understandings of literature. But what is far more important is the complex ways in which these broad understandings manifest themselves in historical and cultural specificities.

Q: For example, do we need to use different literary theories to understand and appreciate the work of short stories of Martin Wickramasinghe, G.B. Senanayake, Gunadasa Amarasekara, K. Jayathilake, Erawwala Nandimithra, Jayathilake Kammalweera or for that matter some new writers emerging from Australia or elsewhere writing their new or diasporic experience?

A: In assessing the kind of short stories written by the kind of writers you have identified while being aware of general theories of the short story, we must also be mindful of the peculiarities and distinctiveness of writers. For example, Gunadasa Amarasekera writes in a certain style, while say, Aijth Tilakasena. or Arawwala Nandimithra or Ranjith Dharmakeerthi or Simon Navagaththegama will write in a different representational register. We need to pay attention to their differences. For example, I wrote a forty-page Preface to Arawwala Nadimithra's Collected Short Stories. In it, I sought to focus on what is distinctive, both strengths and weaknesses of Nadimithra's work.

Q: We often hear the story that there exist low standards of judging literary products of Sri Lanka. You may have heard recent debates about the merits and demerits of the work chosen for national literacy awards in 2009. Could we have universal and 'fit for all' standards to judge literary work?

A: The problem with much of modern Sinhala literary criticism is the absence of standards. To be a good critic one's circle of reference has to be sufficiently wide to accommodate diversities of influences and textualities. Modern Sinhala literary criticism, for the most part, lacks the kind of broad intellectual engagement that is pivotal to production of sound literary criticism. As I stated earlier, we can apply certain universal norms in assessing Sinhala literary texts. But what is far more important is the local resonance, as manifested in cultural specificities, of those global understandings.

Q: Do we have a fair tradition of literary criticism in Sri Lanka and if not, how can we improve the conditions?

A: Looking back over the past sixty years or so, we can say that we have succeeded in paving the way for the emergence of a healthy tradition of literary criticism as reflected on the works of Sarachchandra, Wickremainghe and Amarasekera. The most productive way of improving on that tradition is by opening ourselves to modern currents of thinking while exploring the complex roots of our own cultural legacy. These two endeavours are united and complementary.

Q: Despite your busy schedule, do you have any plans to write a book or two in Sinhala or English examining the work of new writers emerging from Sri Lanka or those who write about Sri Lanka from London, Sydney, Toronto or Perth?

A: Yes, my latest book of criticism in Sinhala, which is titled ("Satara Doratuva") will be released this month. It is a series of exchanges between Prof. Kulatilaka Kumarasighe and myself. Using advanced modern theory, it explores the four intersecting concepts of author "text" reader-context. I have another book in English which should be published some time this year. It deals with the importance of Buddhism as a positive, creative force in the works of the three of the most brilliant modern writers of Sri Lanka" Martin Wickremasinghe, Ediriweera Sarachchandra and Gunadasa Amarasekera. There is a substantial body of writing emerging among Sinhala diasporic communities.

There is an imperative need to map that body of writing and give it comprehensible shape. The work of Sunil Govinnage, who lives in Perth, Australia, is most important among the writings of diasporic writers. If you take a country like India, a very large number of its most important writers live beyond its shores.