English Novels and Writers

What I would like to point out is that the English novel as written in this epoch inherits a Spanish and French practice of narrative insertion that has little to do with the main plot. Thus, writers such as Cervantes, Sorel and Scarron would put short stories amid a longer tale, and their English admirers (such as Fielding and Smollett) would do the same. The insertions in "Joseph Andrews", "Tom Jones" and "Jonathan Wild" are not necessarily joined into the narrative web. The same is true of Smollett, above all in "Peregrine Pickle", but also in his four other novels.

I'm writing this not to say that Fielding and Smollett were not novelists, but to say that the novel in eighteenth century didn't have such a formal cohesion: it was rather a genre of relative freedom in a time when neoclassical rules had yet some hold on literature. Any consensual definition of the novel is a product of later times, a light thrown retrospectively upon an already existing corpus, and it must be as flexible as the corpus itself. There is no sense in expecting that novels were so-and-so when the writers who first brought it into being had no such concerns.

That's a reason why essentialist definitions of the "novel" are being left aside in favour of a more elastic view. Among recent studies (I mean after Ian Watt's), the two most remarkable are J. Paul Hunter's and Michael McKeon's, and they have in common this wider approach to what may or not be considered a novel. In most recent studies the place of Defoe is taken for granted, as well as that of Richardson. (Fielding, ironically, is seen as more backward than them in this front of inovation.What I would like to point out is that the English novel as written in this epoch inherits a Spanish and French practice of narrative insertion that has little to do with the main plot. Thus, writers such as Cervantes, Sorel and Scarron would put short stories amid a longer tale, and their English admirers (such as Fielding and Smollett) would do the same. The insertions in "Joseph Andrews", "Tom Jones" and "Jonathan Wild" are not necessarily joined into the narrative web. The same is true of Smollett, above all in "Peregrine Pickle", but also in his four other novels.

I'm writing this not to say that Fielding and Smollett were not novelists, but to say that the novel in eighteenth century didn't have such a formal cohesion: it was rather a genre of relative freedom in a time when neoclassical rules had yet some hold on literature. Any consensual definition of the novel is a product of later times, a light thrown retrospectively upon an already existing corpus, and it must be as flexible as the corpus itself. There is no sense in expecting that novels were so-and-so when the writers who first brought it into being had no such concerns.

That's a reason why essentialist definitions of the "novel" are being left aside in favour of a more elastic view. Among recent studies (I mean after Ian Watt's), the two most remarkable are J. Paul Hunter's and Michael McKeon's, and they have in common this wider approach to what may or not be considered a novel. In most recent studies the place of Defoe is taken for granted, as well as that of Richardson. (Fielding, ironically, is seen as more backward than them in this front of inovation.

Ancient History Information

Are you implying hinduism is much recent to kerala?

In my information, kerala before 500 AD was a sort of dravidian place where people had no organised religion, but they worshipped their ancestors and a warrior goddess. Women drank and quarrelled. In short we can say a "Thora" (coastal) culture akin to vizhinjam, chaavakkad, mattancheri meenchantha existed them.

Into this first comes vedic aryan influences. Then arrives buddhism and jainism. Then comes judaism and later christianity and islam.

The gods and demo gods like ganapati, durga etc are comparatively recent imports. Doesnt mean wht the dravidian believed in wasnt hinduism. (though not in modern keralite form).

We can say similarly abt roman catholicism. Compare the roman church of 900 AD with that of 2001 AD. You will not believe they were the one and same organisation.

Literature Intention

The people who deal in arts and literature are not bound to create a final tragic piece. Many writers get happier as time goes by. But this is a secondary matter; I would like to say something as to whom literature is intended at.

I am a professional translator and earn my bread through books, and yet I don't make a very high idea of literature. I don't think it is more important than, say, culinary or swimming. Of course, literature (and written texts in general) can give us such views of history and of society as are unatainable by any other vehicle. But most people can fare well without a wide view of history or society, and even though literature is my favorite subject, I believe people in general would prefer a pizza to Shakespeare. I would suggest them to have both; but if they must choose one, let them choose the pizza.

I don't mean by this that literature is worthless. But it requires a capable reader. Who is this capable reader? Sure, it is the professional student, who works with literature to solve questions of history or sociology. But it is also, as Navaid said, anyone who is able to get amusement or instruction from a text. Whenever a reader can put a book aside for a moment and say "Hey, it's good to read this stuff"; whenever he can better understand his world and times, or deal with people, or simply tell a joke - then literature is justified. I doesn't please everybody: true, but a pizza doesn't either.

Woman and Honor Solution

A very pertinent issue. Unfortunately, some ppl in our midst refuse to even acknowledge it an issue, but it is a huge problem, at least here in Pakistan.

You are right, somehow the onus of safegaurding the 'honour' of the faimly always falls on the women. I suppose somehow its the legacy of the age-old traditions we have had and the notion that the men know the society better( no pun intended). So they have got to gaurd the womenfolk and punish the few errant and rebelious ones who challenge this belief.

The problem here is that whenever a lady wants to have it her way against the wishes of her family, her family brand here as a stigma to the family- one who has 'dishonoured' them. Somehow i dont think its because of lack of education or social awareness. You would see cases of honor killing right across the social hierarchy. SamiaSarwar was a one such unlucky 'educated' lady who murdered in cold blood at the orders of her mother in the offices of her lawyer. This was the resposne from the ones in our NA. Condemnable to say the least.

And the role of religion? I think the issue had more of a 'social genesis' than a religious one. Religion has just become a pawn in the hands of the perpetrators.

The sad thing is that i dont think education will help in this regard, only proactive involvement by the common man. Check this VictimsOfLaw. Some incidents where the people did win.

So where do we go form here?

Kidnap review

After a rocking launch earlier this year with the breezy Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na, chocolate-hero Imran Khan turns vicious villain with Kidnap. Pitted against him is angst-ridden father Sanjay Dutt, battling to save his daughter Minissha Lamba. And, Yes, Minissha shed her girl-next-door image with this flick; she worked out like crazy to carry off her latest look. Sanjay Dhoom Gadhvi directs this film; so, expect loads of action.