Once during a flight (i.e., in the mid-air), a kid sitting in my back row
was asking his father why the aeroplane was not moving. I am sure many
people do feel the same but don't ask, as they know it is moving. However,
the classical mechanics of Physics says that a person in a moving vehicle
will have the same velocity as the vehicle itself. However, people feel
they are at rest in a moving vehicle, which is an illusion. The same is
applicable for the perspective of the changing trends also. People in a
moving world (doesn't matter backward or forward), when they are also part
of it, can't maintain a 'stationary' position with reference to changing
trends. However, if one wishes to maintain a 'stationary/fixed' position,
which is different from the 'practical unbearable velocity', the difference
between the two gets transformed into an agitating force. The result is
unrest.
For eg., as far as telugu literature is concerned, this is equally
applicable to those who like or hate chandassu. This attitude may be termed
as 'strong/fixed opinion' by one group and 'stubborn/rigid' by the other.
What would be the consequences of this attitude?
I had mensuration (kshEtra gaNitamu) in Composite Mathematics during my 9th
class (1970-71; I am sure many can recollect those problems). I was very
amazed and amused by some of the problems the way they are framed. They
haunt me even today. For eg. (I don't feel like translating it into
English, so, please bear with me, just for this problem in RITten.)
'oka paccika maidAnamulO, 30 meeTerla bhujamu gala caturasrAkArapu
(square) kance kaladu. daaniki, velupala; oka moola, 50 meeTerla poDavu
gala traaTitO, oka aavu kaTTi vEya baDinadi. aavu gaDDi mEya gala
sthala vaiSaalya menta?'
As long as the length of the rope is fixed (pun intended), no matter
whether it is 'old or new', 'rigid or not', the area the cow can cover
doesn't increase.
(Well some (humorous) one may further extend or say, if she can grab
everything whithin the region, that is more than sufficient. Or the cow can
wait till the grass grows again. Or she can set herself free like a rebel
etc. Indeed, these are the various attitudes we come across in people of
different mentalities regarding different aspects. The irony is the same
person may be a 'rebel' in one aspect and a 'conservative' in the other.
Also, the same person, regarding the same aspect may be a 'rebel' at one
time and 'not' at the other time or phase of life.)
Well, as far as 'literature and its trends' are concerned, what is or what
can be the solution?
I recollect another story studied in my 2nd standard (1963-64). (I am sure
many people do know this.) It is about 'drONAchArya' teaching archery to
his desciples. He asks his students to take an aim to cut the bird's head
(of a model made of wood; set in the branches of a tall tree). While they
take aim, he asks them what they could see. Various students describe the
bird, its wings, head, legs, feathers, beak etc. He disqualifies them to
shoot the arrow. (Not because, they described the bird in 'prose' or
'poetry'). He qualifies only arjuna, who says that he can't describe the
bird because, he focussed only on the neck, where he has to hit the bird to
cut the head.
After all, such is the focus. No doubt, associated with the bird, there are
the wings, feathers, legs, head, beak, eyes etc., but the aim got to be
always very specific. If literature is dealing with the human feelings and
situations, the reader's or critic's predominant and primary focus got to
be on the target, but not on the parafernalia used that is also associated
with it. Even, if one wants to make a comment/criticism on these secondary
things as a matter of technicality, one should first touch upon the
predominant aspect and give it the due credit/respect and then proceed to
the other associated aspects. Many of the analyzers/critics ignore this
point and highlight/project the only one which one doesn't like, in an
unintended or intended insensible way. Of course, many of these secondary
aspects may be quite true. However,
'anudvEga karam vaakyam satyam priya hitam cayEt'
............. (bhagavad geeta)
'satyamunu, priyamuganu, hitavuganu palukavalenu.' Even a truth, if said
in a harsh manner may not be accepted and in addition, the focus switches
to the 'degree of harshness used' rather than to the 'point/truth' and
takes a different highway altogether.
So, by giving the major focus to the primary aspect, one can keep pace with
trend and would be able to add up one's own aspects also to the 'momentum'
of the trend, thereby may not agitate oneself and all much.
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala