Most
of our mature critics are shot dead by their own sensibility. One of
the proofs of this is the interview of Dr. V. Rajakrishnan in Madhyamam
Weekly. If the interview can be believed, his opinions are peripheral
and irresponsible. The interview revealed the incapability and ignorance
of Rajakrishnan in realizing contemporary Malayalam literature.His
ideas are ragged and exhausted. Let the books he read give him pardon
for the sin.Almost of his opinions does not deserve analyzations for
they lack quality.
Critics like Rajakrishnan,get into a conclusion that nothing happened in Malayalam poetry after Balachandran and Ayyappan. No doubt, in a particular phase of malayalam poetry their contributions need to be considered. But viewing from the new circumstances poetry of Balachandran and Ayyappan are old stuff.Their style of writing(too verbose and too subjective) related to new Poetry have no scope.A critic who want to study new poetry and its historical importance , must flee from the nostalgic grips of B.C and A.A.
A critic must know that new poetry should not be measured out with a touchstone. On the contrary, the poems should be followed one by one and may find out if there is any cultural, political formation common among them. New poetry in Malayalam has done a decentralization.It is a particular subject to be discussed. Through this decentralization, the hegemony of two or three writers was lost and the conventional closed system in poetry changed into a federal system of numerous poets taken place in Malayalam poetry.Hence if any new critic chooses five or six poets fit to the market in order to analyze the new poetry ,does the same mistake done by the oldies.In fact a new critic should have to write about the common sharings of civil society of poets ,its anguishes and the interpretations it produce.
The traditional sensibility in criticism is always in search of a hero.In the period of modernism they have some heroes.In the 70's another group of heroes came.They wrote about these heroes in hyperbolic hero worship.What happened to these heroes later?The answer is transparent to a serious student of malayalam literature.
In the particular context ,new poetry reached to a level that if history is a burden then shake it out and look into matters candidly.Heroes and super stars are not the reality but the civil society is.This idea is in the core of new poetry.It is democratic and it works through the formation of a poets' civil society.It is a new phenomena.An epistemological break.
Hardly aware of this, majority of critics in malayalam are in search of heroes and superstars.Rajakrishnan also does the same.It is a fruitless search .Critics die this way.
Critics like Rajakrishnan,get into a conclusion that nothing happened in Malayalam poetry after Balachandran and Ayyappan. No doubt, in a particular phase of malayalam poetry their contributions need to be considered. But viewing from the new circumstances poetry of Balachandran and Ayyappan are old stuff.Their style of writing(too verbose and too subjective) related to new Poetry have no scope.A critic who want to study new poetry and its historical importance , must flee from the nostalgic grips of B.C and A.A.
A critic must know that new poetry should not be measured out with a touchstone. On the contrary, the poems should be followed one by one and may find out if there is any cultural, political formation common among them. New poetry in Malayalam has done a decentralization.It is a particular subject to be discussed. Through this decentralization, the hegemony of two or three writers was lost and the conventional closed system in poetry changed into a federal system of numerous poets taken place in Malayalam poetry.Hence if any new critic chooses five or six poets fit to the market in order to analyze the new poetry ,does the same mistake done by the oldies.In fact a new critic should have to write about the common sharings of civil society of poets ,its anguishes and the interpretations it produce.
The traditional sensibility in criticism is always in search of a hero.In the period of modernism they have some heroes.In the 70's another group of heroes came.They wrote about these heroes in hyperbolic hero worship.What happened to these heroes later?The answer is transparent to a serious student of malayalam literature.
In the particular context ,new poetry reached to a level that if history is a burden then shake it out and look into matters candidly.Heroes and super stars are not the reality but the civil society is.This idea is in the core of new poetry.It is democratic and it works through the formation of a poets' civil society.It is a new phenomena.An epistemological break.
Hardly aware of this, majority of critics in malayalam are in search of heroes and superstars.Rajakrishnan also does the same.It is a fruitless search .Critics die this way.
No comments:
Post a Comment