Skip to main content


A while back there was a discussion thread in FB where people were crying hoarse on what makes a good literature. Or in other words, how do you filter out something as literature from...hmm..crap, to make it simple. Though i keep hearing many words, whenever controversy arouses around them at that time only i try to gauge the real meaning of them, rest of the time riding on contextual sense. Wiki says that literature means a collection of written production that are perceived to be aesthetically excellent, contrary to belief that every single creation is a literature. Literally-a-ture nu artham pannikiten pola. I can put vidhandavaadha query as to what if there is only book/poem written by a person which becomes super duper hit in celebrated authors circle!!?? That throws back the question, who decides if a production is aesthetically excellent. What makes the review of a select few the norm for others to follow. Allowing time for the question to settle and moving on to that thread discussion.

Well, there are people who never miss a chance to trash Chetan Bhagath despite the undeniable fact that his books have sold more than the sum total of the next ten authors in top ten sellers list. His language, some call simple, many pathetic. To call his works as modern literature classics would be declaring war on thyself with hoards of grammar nazis and self proclaimed mega critics crying bloody murder. From the view point of a fan of his books, who appreciate his writing simply for the matter that you dont have to rush to a dictionary to know any meaning of a difficult word and nor you've to scratch your head into imagining unexplained worlds, the definition could be much different. His works are simple and very contemporary. He hit jackpot with his first book and rest are all mere mish mash of the same theme with different settings is world known. One may not equate Chetan with Shakespeare. Its ridiculous to even make that reference. Can he be compared with Amitav Ghosh or Ravi Subramaniam or Ahswin Sanghi. Now that would be an interesting debate for almost all of them have as many haters as followers.

To me personally, i was unable to follow any of those books that are classified as classics and have cult following. None of those books, even in the non-detail form, were of any interest to me, for basically my grasp on the knowledge was pretty poor to say the least and understanding similes and metaphors on an alien tongue was not even in my least favored pastime activity. Yet. Buvaakaga padika arambichi, oralvuku puriara mathiri kathukitten. There are many works in Tamil, my mother tongue, which itself i find very difficult to understand and to even get the meaning from contextual sense. Does the general criteria for a book to be called a literature means, it should be difficult to understand for paamara makkal like me? Does it mean that any thing which is simple to understand can't be termed as a literature or classic? Is having metaphors and hidden meanings that is left to the imagination of the reader the major criteria for a master piece? If the argument is towards having books that makes you think, can't it be countered that as much as people find it difficult to come to a conclusion on a classic, the simpler stories makes them understand the content. Shouldnt that count for anything. If a person with good vocab enjoys and understands layered content and exclaims its beauty, terming it a literature, in what way its rated higher than a simple joy that a book with easier to understand content allows? How does one rate the enjoyment factor with not a single common variable?

In the name of review, i often trash or speak high of many a movie or book in this very blog. There could be millions and billions of others who view things totally different than as perceived in this blog and who knows, inadvertently i could've posted blasphemous statement against those that may be considered as classic literature to many. The very reason that i am lured to those works may not always be based on the content or quality but more often than not on the publicity surrounding such works. So to qualify as a literature, should it be endowed with people having good marketing skills?

Personally, after 800 posts, if some one asks, has my writing improved or not, i have no answer. Whenever i get to read some of my earlier posts, there are certain coinage of sentences that stump me to understand the thought process behind them. The list of words that i use have always been pretty static and if i keep writing, using the same set of words, yet conveying the intent behind the post, do they qualify as litter or literature?!!! Avvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.....


Ramesh said…
Yes, there is a lot of snootiness in what is considered literature. I for one care two hoots for such exclusivity. If what I read is nice, its literature for me. If it isn't its rubbish.

By that standard, its obvious what this blog is :)
gils said…
avvvvvvvvvvvvv....gils literally floating...danx thala.

Popular posts from this blog

Chennai-28 part 2- boys are back

The best thing about the first part of the movie, Chennai-28, that came like a decade back was its originality. The pin code had a role to play and was right in the scheme of things which made the movie a hit. It was a nostalgic walk through for people like me who grew up near that area and all those cricket grounds and lanes and streets had ready recall value. Bonus was the simple story with tongue in cheek one liners and the climax twist that was a roftl howler on the team. Even the songs were memorable and everything clicked well in first part. Very rarely do we get sequels which are a literal continuation with almost the same cast playing their age per the story. A big kudos to the director for the setup. Nothing seems artificial and he has played to the strength of the story pretty well. The cricket crazy boys in first part have all become adults, with none, but for one, are bachelor. They’ve their daily routine life, which other than many things, is totally devoid of playing cri…

La la land

The whole issue of mini-mum usurping the throne is heading towards Stockholm syndrome of a climax. All that is required is for her to appear before mike in a publicized meet and cry a few tears on how people are tarnishing and passing cheap comments on her and blocking her opportunity just because she was an assistant to the late supremo. Social media is abuzz with meme’s of how the ex-servant maid is now going to be the next ruler of the state and are, as usual, over the top in decrying her and her intentions. Some of the comments and memes may straight away invite defamation cases and are out right condemnable even if true. What such people miss out is that, though their intention of stopping a corrupt person to come to power may be justified, their means are not. Not a single meme or post talks about how corrupt she is and what are the charges against her and no one is questioning her source for creating such a vast fortune when her original and only known occupation had always bee…

Remo - Movie review

Much ado about Remo could very well be an apt title for this post. Siva Karthikeyan has reinvented the tried and tested success formula of wastrel hero winning laddu heroine, patented by Dhanush and Vijay and Ajith and who-is-who in the movie industry. At some point of time in their career, before their image started deciding scripts for them, all mass heroes have been victim of picking scripts that were bordering on female harassment to abuse, when the same scenario if applied to the villain would lead to fatal consequences for him what might earn catcalls and whistles and even duet for the hero, mocking the heroine. And all said and done, if she, sanely, decides to reject the advances of the hero, there would be even more bashing bhashans on how selfish womenfolk are as compared to how selfless and pure the guys who woo are, who are in fact wastrels as pronounced by all and sundry, right from their own parents to peers to people of their parish.

Rajini successfully tapped the male e…