literature, politics, polemics

One can safely say dabbling in Art and Literature requires no entree fee.

If one has to produce something in any other field, scientific or religious, one may be required to spend time studying it. They need to make atleast some effort in learning the practice and take time to study how it is applied. In order for one to be critical of C programming language, one need to know the basics of a programming language, semantics and the jargon. Otherwise it would be too generic (applicable to most languages). If it were to stick to a particular religion, one needs to be conversant in that specific religion. They may have to, again, study it a bit more closely.

I read some place that when certain minimum physical comforts are satisfied, humans enquire into other areas for their satisfaction. Art, Literature fall into that category. These two require minimum skill and a low cost of entry. One need not understand the historical context, the meaning for the present generation or the future orientation of either the Art or Literature in order to become a critic. One could look at a master piece and say that 'these things are produced for millionaires' or the same person could take a different side under a different context to argue that 'art is not just for millionaires'. Both are valid views and a reasonable person can butt heads on either side without any preliminary knowledge of what the object is. The painter could be Jean-François Millet or Vincent Van Gogh, one does not need to know the subject in question, in order to consider and weigh on taking sides.

Literature also thusly lends itself to criticism by common folk. Citizen entry into literature is not limited. It does not mean that either Literature or Art changes in its form with ordinary people taking different sides. Art and Literature do not change based on people taking sides or their perceptions. Literature brings imagination to life from its creator and unveils a form unseen by the viewer or reader. Each piece has its face, many faces in fact, therefore many interpretations. The reader becomes a part of it at one time or the other, in both accepting it and rejecting it. Literature also knows no time. Each produced in different times endure other layers, in time. Literature in my opinion is the single most meaningful invention of mankind, a priceless gift to future generations. Humans must have, unconsciously I believe, decided to pass on their wisdom, playfulness, their fears, behavior and thoughts, and clearly their trials and tribulations to their patrons - future generations.

With such a vastly broad definition, as mentioned in the beginning, with very low cost entry into the field, literature is created sometimes unknowingly by the reader. It still does qualify to be literature, therefore, there are no barriers to not only read, understand and enjoy this creation but there are also no barriers to creating it.

I am no literataeur. I think that title need to be reserved for those whose creations are tested by time and reason. Therefore, I venture into politics.

Associating oneself with literature does not require group behavior. Group behavior alters individual's outlook with respect to literature. An individual is either completely devoid or partly modified of all his/her inclinations as a part of a specific group. One needs to, in order to have an unbiased view of a work in question, think from an individual perspective. The bias is introduced by the group one chooses to be a part of. Therefore, the personal view is foresaken atleast in part as a part of the group, by some or others at any given point of time.

The group imposes Zoon Politikon ideal (somewhat voluntarily from the individual perspective) and adds color to one's views. Aristotle may have other theories on this but the closest to human behavior currently relevant in 'right' and 'left' politics, Marx's observation, apparantly, that an individual's ability to behave independent of others is valued only as long as one is a part of a group. The group already modified the definition of individual with such an acceptance.

The political animal part plays huge with revisiting of a literary subject. Now, all of a sudden an individual is beginning to cede his ability to chose for himself or herself based on his/her convictions. The group's collective wisdom after some arguement, takes over for defining literature. By its very nature any group is after a near term objective. The politics is about near term (short-term).

A group's wish for future, mostly near term, clearly outweighs the idealistic, long-term views of an individual. Any group can elect to be indifferent to an individual taking the shape of 'an entity', that seeks to influence other individuals. Now the entity has a value in a democratic sphere. The politics of an individual, when reinforced by the object of a group, are no longer controlled by the literary taste of an individual. A literary group will be the dullest form of creation, it can not produce a long-term, time tested literature, even when critiquing.

Politics are not to be confused with literature. For an ordinary joe on the street it could be hard to distinguish between the two. There are vast amount of works, infact, I would not be surprised if the majority of the works are in the grey area between these two spheres. In capitalistic societies individuals write to sell their ideas. For a political perspective, 'grey area' sounds good, literateur would not have said such a thing. There are those who might say literature denying politics in itself is political in nature. That may be true, I am happy with that idea, except that politics in itself does not constitute literature. There needs a product, a time tested one at that, to show.

In short, literature defines the longer term view of an individual. Politics represent a shorter course of survival of the group. Both are equally important. Politics influence literature of the time. Literature also modifies political nature of a human being. However closely these two are related neither should be confused with the other in that one is a beauty itself and the other is a reflection based on the beholder.

How can one tell which is which? Are you confused? You are the right candidate for politics. It requires no entry and will not be a hindrance to any claim-to-be a part of literary scene. What more, one can always claim to be in a grey area like this writer and escape the wrath of others. And you will be in majority by doing so.

To those who are confused just like I am on occassion, I offer the following single test:

1. Does this work seek to make a case, an appeal to form a public opinion?

2. With or without public's opinion as in Democracy, does the character of this question change? {To elaborate, if there is a question, in order for it to qualify as a literary question, it must have such a merit regardless of the public opinion.}

3. Can the question be made redundant once people take a vote on it?

If the answer is yes to all of the above three questions, I conclude that the question/work falls in the 'grey area' or if you pay me to be more specific: it is a political question.

PS. Needless to say perhaps, but the above thought is influenced by what DTLC as a literary club went through recently, in losing a couple of individual voices from itself over a political matter.