Narrative of Narratives

Friends, As all of us know,the interests and concerns of creative writers and academicians in matters related to all aspects of writing often take diametrically opposite routes. I don’t think it is something that should be or could be prevented. What the writers do through their works is of course highly debatable. But I think a certain amount of certitude is possible regarding the activities taking place in academic circles. In addition to the routine work of transmitting accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge they problematise new aesthetic and ideological arenas created by the latest texts produced in different genres, including literary philosophy and criticism. Students of literature, researchers and teachers are expected to be not only the keen and careful observers of this activity, but contributors too. Unless they do that teaching of literature in higher level will remain stagnant and the production of new tools, techniques and ideological frame works of analysis will be hampered. But for a creative writer a comprehensive knowledge of the forces- political, social, cultural and aesthetic that act behind each and every element of his work is least essential. An attempt to have a thorough understanding of such aspects during the process of writing may even abort the work. From personal experience I can say that no writer would succumb to such foolishness. What does that mean? Does a writer begin his/her work without anything else but a vague idea of the plot? Certainly it is not so. But the fact remains that the majority of events, connecting links and even characters evolve only when he or she enters the world of writing where a different sun sheds it’s light on things which transforms them to realities not perceivable when the normal intellect and analytical power is active. A writer does not willingly create this change. It just happens. He/she can do only a very little in the form of alteration. It is with such an unformidable force that the new visions, ideological standpoints and feelings get realised in the work. But this miracle does’nt take place shattering everything that the writer has knowingly and unknowingly accumulated in different layers of his psyche. The only thing is that during the moments of writing one enters a realm of freedom where many of the preconceived notions about ideology and fears and anxieties related to social approval turn to be inert. Let me elaborate a little from personal experience. My latest story ‘Oru Malayali Branthante Diary’ (The Diary of a Malayali Mad Man) was in fact written without any planning . One day late in the night as I was busily engaged in the writing of a novel on which I have been working for the last 5 to 6 years, a few scenes which have no connection with the novel came to my mind as if from nowhere. One was of a man talking to a goat, another one a rooster in conversation with the same person. I felt quite relaxed since I had a feeling of freeing myself from the work of the novel which demanded a high amount of mental exertion and involvement. I stopped writing the novel and sat in an exalted mood with a strange feeling that something hitherto unknown was going to happen. Suddenly the memory of Gogol’s work ‘The Diary of a Mad Man’ came to my mind. Fortunately a collection of Gogol’s stories was in my bookshelf and after many years I read the story once again. I found no incident in the story having any resemblance with the scenes that appeared in my mind a few minutes ago and this finding was accompanied by a decision to write a story with the title ‘Oru Malayali Bharnthante Diary’. It took only two nights to complete that long story. Even now the whole thing remains a mystery to me. For what did I write such a story? Two or three years back I had thought about writing a story with a monkey as the central character.The idea occured to me as one of my closest friends, a jail warder,once told me the story of a monkey who reached the jail with his master who earned his daily bread by making it perform in the street corners. The monkey developed the habit of enjoying a peg of foreign liquor daily in the night which the jail warders gave him just for their merry making. After two months when his owner got bail the monkey left the jail in tears. This narration now got mingled with the scenes that came to me out of the blue and the energy and confidence I could gather from the rereading of Gogol acted upon them so as to compel me to write something in the form of a story.I began.And characters and anecdotes came in a flow.The story narrates the mental activities and experiences of a mad man and naturally,those who have the confidence of being normal may find most of them totally illogical. But no reader found the story a riddle or mere fantasy.No one said that it was obscure or absurd.That means I and the readers came to an agreement regarding the experiences,ideas and observations the story has to convey. Now leaving aside the personal experiences related to a story I shall come to some facts more relevant in the understanding of the processes of writing and reading. We know that the general reading public in any language are largely lethargic in modifying their literary tastes and sensibility.At the same time they are always suspicious about their ability to make value judgements on creative works.So they depend upon the media and other centres of authority to determine whether a novel or poem is in fact good or bad. As this is the reality any writer attempting to make radical changes in the predominant style of narration has to face in the initial stage the risk of being ignored or ruthlessly criticized.But at the same time if a story bestows the writer with the courage and readiness to make a voyage to the deepest centres of social psyche,even though he resorts to the use of entirely strange narraative style,no critic or the so called judges of sensibility could prevent him/her from reaching the vast majority of readers whose appreciation and approval will not be contaminated by the comments or observations of the self appointed judges of sensibility. I think how the basic tenets of our literay sensibility reached its present state has to be narrated briefly to have an understanding of what takes place in contemporary literature. In the early years fiction writers tried to maintain an order and logical connection to everything they depicted in their novels.Even when they gave fictional form to extremely strange life experiences they wanted no shade of disbelief to fall upon their readers. For example,when Daniel Defoe published Robinson crusoe he concealed the fact that the story was a fiction born out of imagination(The Naive and Sentimental Novelist-Orhan Pamuk). Later it has been generally understood that there is nothing shameful in admitting the decisive role of imagination in fictional writing. This understanding was again overthrown when the literay philosophies of Naturalism and Realism ,which,though with marked differences in detail, stressed that the depiction of life in fiction should be truthful.When Modernists came they argued that art and literature should not be tied to the mundane realities of day today life and their prime function is the search of existential agonies and truths.It took decades to reach to the notion that truth in any art and even in many spheres of social life is a construct.The plurality of truth has been overstressed as modernism began to descend after its short stay on the peaks.Things took yet another different turn quite recently. Discussions on the truthfulness of truth also has become obselete.Now there are fantasies which swallow truth in its fullness leaving no trace of them to be seen.Examples of such works are many and one of the most beautiful among them is The Palm-Wine Drinkard of Amos Tutuola which is a total fantasy that tempts us to decipher the truths of our time from the totally unreal characters and incidents that constitute the novel. In contemporary fiction reality is freely mixed with fantasy and no attempt is made to resolve the contradiction. Both writers and readers are unconcerned about the illogicalities in the plot. It seems in many parts of the world life has reached such a state where reality is only a synonym of fantasy. The most beautiful depiction of this strange but real state of affairs is seen in Haruki Murakami’s ‘Kafka On The Shore’. Another development also is to be noted. In surrealism reality is replaced by dream and fantasy. In magical realism magic elements are made a natural part of reality and as a result reality is raised to new aesthetic heights. But in hyper realism the real in the reality is magnified to such a level that abnormal clarity is acheived. In Moyan’s novels which cannot be classified as hyper realistic in the strict sense such a magnification takes place. Here there is no conscious breaking of the logic of the real.But the vivid descriptions with abundance of minute details at every level raises the narration to a level of sensous experience. Whatever be the narrative technique employed by the contemporary writers they all eloquently argue that in our age truth is not easy to conceive and it exists embracing stark contradictions. Contemporary novelists in general are very much enthusiastic in stating emphatically that no novel aims at presenting a singular vision of anything. Milan kundera’s The Curtain and Orhan Pamuk’s The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist are replete with statements to this effect. Why the writers and intellectuals of our age are so particular in repeating that reality is plural and diverse. I think this stand is the product of a vacum which is created by the total inefficiency of all ideologies in comprehending the new world situation which is marked by the celebration of diversities generated and controlled by the forces whose interests and decisions decide the functioning mode of the market. What we see and feel as multiplicity and diversity are only partially so because as Julian Stallabrass put it ‘they all encounter the sanctioning of the market place.’ (Contemporary Art: A Very Short Introduction) Before concluding let me say a few words on the ideas and trends that determine the textual politics of narratives in Malayalam. When the spirit of social renaissance joined the streams of freedom struggle and the communist movement , for about 15 years i.e during the period from the end of 1930s till the early years of 1950s the concept about the function of literature firmly rooted in its social responsibilities made its presence strongly felt in Malayalam literature. Realistic depiction of life in the lower strata of society was generally approved as the duty of writers, especially fiction writers and as a result we got some of the all time best stories and novels in the language from writers like Basheer,Thakazhi, Kesavadev, Ponkunnam Varkey and S.K.Pottekkattu. Things began to change slowly and the agonies of lone individuals became the pivotal element of fiction in the next stage. Later during the period of high modernism the presence of ontological probes got an upper hand over social and political issues. The feudal and upper caste literary sensibility though with certain reservations approved the new aesthetic parameters since questions regarding social inequalities and other issues were considered irrelevant and insignificant in the new literature. The glorious period of Modernism ended by the beginning of 80s but the concept about the social responsibility of Writers couldn’t stage a come back.In the next decade the politics and concrete experiences of globalisation began to determine the essence of realities in public life as well as the private life of individuals and things began to take a different turn.As no political ideology is able to make its presence strongly felt in social life and as market has established an undisputable sway over all walks of life no section of writers consider that they should declare their support or sympathy to any ideology.All ideological positions are overpowered by market when they enter the realm of practice. As the human race reach this juncture of history all grand narratives are nullified by the one and only grand narrative i.e market.The market for its survival takes every attempt to ensure the free flow of money and create an aura of freedom and only on the occassions of sharp economic recession people awake to the shocking contradictions in society. Even then no one can move away from the magnetic fields which has been alrady actvated.New goods,new temptations,new necessities,new hopes and new anxieties are continuosly created.The world of sensations conquer the terrains of intellect and the needs of soul are brought to the minimum.‘Only a very little is enough for the body but for the survival of humam essence everything in the world is not enough’ sang vailoppilly.But today the reverse is happening.Human essence is made a feeble shadow of the greed the market produces in high acceleration. Though writers in general are aware of this dilemma most of them do not attach much importance to these issues. They behave as if they wont’ be affected by anything that does not directly interfere with thier work.They resort to any form of writing which will ensure their commercial success and the approval of the so called power centres in literature.An idea that has begun to be widely circutated among young writers and artists is that individual talent and creativity are nothing if the writer or artist is unwilling to join hands with the new culture of transnational capitalism.In the discussions being held in connection with Cochin Muziris Biennele this is the argument raised most loudly and emphatically. New creative writing courses instiituted in variuos universities in India and abroad aim at giving trainig to those who want to enter the world of writing with a high spirit of enterpreneurship. For them creativity means the mastering of certain writing techniques and a thorough knowledge of the ingrediants of powerful narrative. A larege number of novels in contemporary English Literature are the products of this new writing culture. Literature has lost confidence in acting as a tool of social change. The ideological stand it takes is often wavering. Declaring support and allegiance to the struggles of the poorest in the society is considered totally outmoded. If you want to get involved in such concerns do it as a social worker,if possible a funded social worker that is the attitude of society.Then what is left there for the writers and artists to do?I think a genuine writer who is truthful to his vocation should fearlessly challenge or ignore the new culture of copetitive commercialism and create genuine narratives of contemporary life,contemplating on the limits and possibilities of every style of narration that comes across his mind.He or She should bear all the frictions and tensions of continuously questioning and disbelieving oneself. He should not celeberate as ‘the exercise of freedom all that is forced on him’(Julian Stallbrass). He should decide for himself the nature and content of his freedom. It is better to be a living organism in darkness generating a ray of light than a dazzling mirror reflecting every celeberation in the market with the misconception that it is doing so at its own will. Thank you;Thank you all. (Inaugural address made on 26/2/2013 at ‘Narrative of Narratives’ national seminar organised by the dept.of English,Sree Sankaracharya University,Kalady.)