My View about 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. 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.


Know about Ancient History

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.


Learn about Literature

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.

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 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 eithe