The critic's mandate

Many writers are anxious to launch at least one of their creations during the Literary Month. Both writers and publishers wish to display their books at the forthcoming mega international book exhibition scheduled to be held at the BMICH. Some writers go to the extent of having their books reviewed in the national press because many readers are influenced by critical reviews.

In developed countries such as England, the United States, France and Germany, there are professional reviewers and newspapers devote separate supplements to promote books. Even in India, The Hindu newspaper publishes colourful supplements on books. In Sri Lanka, however, there are hardly any professional book reviewers and most newspapers do not publish critical reviews for reasons known to themselves.

Some authors send their books to university teachers to be reviewed. However, the reviews written by them are too long and rambling. Others send their books to newspaper editors, thinking that somebody will sit down and review their work. Unfortunately, most local newspapers do not have trained and competent journalists to review books. The few who are competent to do so are overloaded with other duties.

Book reviewing is a thankless job. The reviewer usually spends a long time to read a novel or a poetry collection before writing his comments. When the review is published, he does not get a feedback even from the author! Naturally, the reviewer gets discouraged and begins to question himself whether it is worthwhile to review books. Despite such a bleak situation, a few dedicated reviewers keep commenting on new books.

The role of the reviewer or the critic is to act as a moderator between the author and the reader. He tells the reader whether the latter should or should not read a particular book using his expertise. However, authors and critics are sometimes at opposite poles of literary experience. The author usually thinks that he has written a masterpiece. But the critic's approach is somewhat dissective and forensic.

Some authors are under the impression that criticism is the favourite pastime of failed writers. However, there are many literary critics who are also celebrated writers. Although writers need the services of critics, the latter can afford to live without criticising what others write. Seasoned critics know well that criticism is not a kind of disabled creativity.

Some authors write books and also act as critics. When someone who belongs to this category makes an unfavourable comment, he becomes unpopular. Most authors love to be praised by critics so that they can make a profit by selling the book. Having had some experience as an author and critic, I am in an unfortunate situation: It is very difficult to find a reviewer when I write a book!

Critics are not born. After following many courses of studies, the critic learns the rudiments of literary criticism. Then he applies his knowledge to novels, short stories and poetry. Once a well-known critic brought down the ecstatic euphoria of a novelist by saying: "This is not a novel". The novelist was so annoyed that he made a complaint to the head of the newspaper organisation.

Dryden said, "Those who write ill and they who ne'er durst write turn critics out of revenge and spite". This shows the ancient rivalry that existed between writers and critics. Today we find that this rivalry is essential for the existence of a balanced critical framework. If there is no critic, who will act as a moderator and interpreter between the author and the reader?

A local publisher once told me that the reading habit is on the wane. However, he leads a luxurious life, spending his holidays in the United States or Singapore. Meanwhile, most authors write books because they have an irrepressible urge to do so. Nobody can become a millionaire by writing books at least in Sri Lanka. Whatever that may be, those who fall prey to doomsday fallacies that people no longer read books should visit the International Book Exhibition.

The printed word may have lost some of its prestige over the years. However, there are millions of people who read books for both knowledge and entertainment. Despite the onslaught of new technological media, the printed book will last for many more centuries. The joy of reading a newly printed book with its pleasant smell of ink and paper cannot be replaced by an e-book.

In literary criticism the critic has to scan the symbols, reinterpret them in words and evaluate their significance. Sometimes, most writers are unaware of this process. Only a seasoned critic will know whether a book will appeal to the reader and last in a highly competitive market.

So, the few critics in our midst will continue to read books and react to them with integrity and understanding. I fully agree with Anatole France who said, "The good critic is he who relates the adventures of his soul among masterpieces."