B.
Rajivan’s ‘Vakkukalum Vasthukkalum’ attracted me because of the
serious approach to the subjects under discussion. This type of
‘seriousness ’is very relevant when considering the silly going
literary and political scenario in news papers, periodicals and visual
media around . The book is in need of further discussions , criticism
and fill ups.
The first part of the book deals with literature. The studies on Satchidanandan, Sankarapillai are satisfactory in a historical point of view. When looking from the contemporary context of literary criticism , its limitations are gradually appears . While going through it an astute reader may curiously wish to know what Rajeevan writes about their poems in the changing phase , pattern and democratization of Malayalam poetry after 90’s. How they participate in that change? Any degradation happened to their poetry? If such a search is done , a totality could be attained in case of above said studies. Unfortunately Rajeevan evades the risk of that continuity.
The second part discussing changing Marxism. Here, Rajeevan is trying to know the differential reality of Marxism. He can recognize it to an extent globally. But when focusing on Kerala, some of his assumptions needed criticism.
Why Rajeevan again and again stress on E.M.S? Can E.M.S face the later developments of Marxism in its depth? Is he capable of analyzing the new complexities taken place in Marxism after the fall of Soviet Union , the arrival of postmodernism and globalization.? How can one reach into the core of the problems of Kerala society through E.M.S? These are not questions but doubts calls for more studies.
The studies on Sree Narayanaguru is comparatively filled with fresh observations. But at the same time a serious reader may expect a continuity of this mainly based on new social movements of Aadivasies, particularly under C.K.Janu, Plachimada, Chengara,Valanthakadu…and so on. How do these movements contribute to the discussions on the utilization and broadening of liberal democracy? Where should the civil society as a rewriting force of democratic system be posted ? These questions are also possible related to Rajeevan’s assessments.
After all, this book gives an impression that the author is not able to escape from the grips of the so called main stream of the left .I feel, Rajeevan’s journey with the main stream, minimizes the possibilities of this book, in a broad sense. In the mean time, no doubt, this book is the document of a writer, and his evolutions, who is dedicated his life in search of leftist thought, terminology and aesthetics, for years.
With all this feelings, doubts and disagreements, I prefer this book as a valuable one recently published in Malayalam .And I realize it is not quite appropriate to write about it in the limited space.
The first part of the book deals with literature. The studies on Satchidanandan, Sankarapillai are satisfactory in a historical point of view. When looking from the contemporary context of literary criticism , its limitations are gradually appears . While going through it an astute reader may curiously wish to know what Rajeevan writes about their poems in the changing phase , pattern and democratization of Malayalam poetry after 90’s. How they participate in that change? Any degradation happened to their poetry? If such a search is done , a totality could be attained in case of above said studies. Unfortunately Rajeevan evades the risk of that continuity.
The second part discussing changing Marxism. Here, Rajeevan is trying to know the differential reality of Marxism. He can recognize it to an extent globally. But when focusing on Kerala, some of his assumptions needed criticism.
Why Rajeevan again and again stress on E.M.S? Can E.M.S face the later developments of Marxism in its depth? Is he capable of analyzing the new complexities taken place in Marxism after the fall of Soviet Union , the arrival of postmodernism and globalization.? How can one reach into the core of the problems of Kerala society through E.M.S? These are not questions but doubts calls for more studies.
The studies on Sree Narayanaguru is comparatively filled with fresh observations. But at the same time a serious reader may expect a continuity of this mainly based on new social movements of Aadivasies, particularly under C.K.Janu, Plachimada, Chengara,Valanthakadu…and so on. How do these movements contribute to the discussions on the utilization and broadening of liberal democracy? Where should the civil society as a rewriting force of democratic system be posted ? These questions are also possible related to Rajeevan’s assessments.
After all, this book gives an impression that the author is not able to escape from the grips of the so called main stream of the left .I feel, Rajeevan’s journey with the main stream, minimizes the possibilities of this book, in a broad sense. In the mean time, no doubt, this book is the document of a writer, and his evolutions, who is dedicated his life in search of leftist thought, terminology and aesthetics, for years.
With all this feelings, doubts and disagreements, I prefer this book as a valuable one recently published in Malayalam .And I realize it is not quite appropriate to write about it in the limited space.
No comments:
Post a Comment