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


The question - part 3