In Praise of Poetry
Mohan R. Limaye
When I promote or recommend literary classics (belles-lettres or “lalit vaangmay”) written in
the past, some people think that I am “stuck in the glories of the past.”
I have several reasons for doing so, though being stuck in
the glories of the past is not one of them.
One of the ways a classic (in this case, a literary classic) is
defined is that it is ageless. It is not
for one time. It is timeless. It comes alive every time an appreciative
person reads it, and it is true of a great literary work whether it was first written two thousand years ago or
two months ago (By the way, I’m talking about literature that is valued for its
elegance, aesthetics, and creativity and not literature that aims to inform, “argue”,
and teach).
Alternate interpretations of poems are not meant to be
replacements or substitutions but as extra, accessible, and likely meanings. This, to me, is a unique feature of poetry:
With great poetry, it is not an “either-or” proposition. It is “and” or “in addition to” other valid interpretations. It is these cumulative meanings, the
aggregation of valid interpretations, which enhance and enrich our experience
of great poetry.
When I was a student in India ,
both my Marathi and English language-arts texts included a plenty of poems – an
indispensable part, it seems, in pre-college education. I assume that situation created a very
different academic ambiance in the Indian classroom of more than six decades
ago. I’m aware that the generational
chasm between me and my grandnieces and grandnephews (some of whom range in age
from the teens to the thirties) has led to widely divergent literary tastes
among us.
Incidentally, I’m using the term “poetry” in a very broad
sense that includes all genres of literature (I’m following here Sanskrit
rhetoricians: “Kaavyeshu naatakam ramyam”=
Drama is charming among all forms of Poetry).
Another reason why I passionately push literary classics
written in India ’s
past, particularly, on young Indians of today is I do not want them to think
that the West invented beauty, strength and great literature. Since some of them are not comfortable in India ’s
regional languages, it is even more imperative that they are familiar with
Indian classics, even if only in translation.
Incidentally, I do not promote or recommend “religious”, “mythical” or
“theological” texts.
How does one decide which books / authors constitute as good
reading? It is a difficult
question to answer. Apart from the factor of personal likes and dislikes (which cannot
be avoided), there is another variable here: You have to compare apples
with apples; inter-genres comparisons are neither fair nor enlightening.
I cannot say Hamlet is a better, more promising, read than, say, Amartya Sen, Prof. Zinn or
Thomas Jefferson. Within the same "genre", one can compare. In poetry, for instance, it is possible
to say that one poet offers "more" than the other.
Again, it is even more complex than that because one has to factor in
"durability" -- part of the definition of the term
"classic", as mentioned above. Again, add to this the
issue of what the reader brings to the table. As one of my retiree
friends says, "Poetry should be introduced only to mature
audiences/readers". Another friend
observes that a greater appreciation of poetry comes with actually trying one's
hand at it.
