Nepali Literature: Dialogic Relation between Criticism and History, by Abhi Subedi

“Nepali Literature: Dialogic Relation between Criticism and History,” paper was presented by Prof Abhi Subedi (Ph.D.) at the 2018 SAARC Literary Festival taken place from October 4th-7th in New Delhi.

“This paper is an attempt to capture the tension between the shifting, and fleeting moments in the history of literary criticism. Such moments shape what the English poet T. S. Eliot calls ‘tradition,’ which he stresses is the shaper of individual talent. I have taken up the genre “literary criticism” to introduce the subject of individual talent because as will be mentioned later, this is a valid and heuristic method to approach a subject that deals with shifting and fleeting moments in the tradition of literary appreciation and criticism.” – Abhi Subedi

.

Nepali literary writing has long relied on the concept of a grand narrative, in this case, the grand canon of literature, which became articulate through criticism. Writing a history of literature is an impossible exercise, and more so the writing of literary criticism. Literary criticism is even considered a luxury, at worst a superfluous exercise because it is written for those readers who do not need it; they can understand literature. Those who do not understand do not need literary criticism. I have made comments earlier after the philosophy of Steiner (Subedi). This being the reality, literary criticism following the tradition of English literature established itself as a powerful genre in South Asia. Indian literature, especially Hindi has produced very strong literary critics, so has Nepali literature in the last century prominently.

Anyone who stands to introduce the literary tradition of this part of this world, or of any other part, for that matter, uses the established literary critical tradition, and history either directly related to that or the general political conditionality. I must confess, my description of the literary events of Nepal, therefore, is first based on these canons. But then changes happened. Even when changes happened, the new perspectives too have to rely on the canons, mainly to see how and when did the literary events depart from the canon and how they did so. The burden of this paper is to briefly address this very point of departure and convergence. I do not name particular events persons and discuss them in detail because that would not be possible in the space and time specified for this writing. I only want to indicate how the above two forms have been shaping Nepali literary characters in more contemporary times. I do not want to go back to earlier history, but then forgetting history in literary interpretation is the most irresponsible position that anyone who is seeking to present even a vignette of literary history. So I want to discuss one problematic first, which is related to the dialogic relation between the accepted canonical tradition and the euphoria of change. Nepali literary tradition has retained the canonical tradition in discussions and literary pedagogy. It has become a culture. The culture is very strong. The literary genres are the subjects of literary pedagogy, seminars, literary programmes, and magazines and media. This is not a unique continuum. Literary genres are the subjects of literary discussions in all countries in this region. Literary criticism produced some good interpreters, which is considered a great achievement.

My modest effort here is to allude to the nature of literary criticism. Criticism has two formations—genre specific and general. But literary criticism in this region is not a neutral subject; it is a contested genre. I want to come to Nepali literature after discussing the subject of contestation between the concept of hierarchy and contestation in literature in this region. I want to begin by alluding to an agency that opens up the areas of contestations or meeting points among literature, media, and history together. That is exactly where I want to begin my introductory essay about Nepali literature today. I find the following words written by one of my favorite critic and philosopher George Steiner to bring that very subject for discussion.

Steiner writing about the problems in balancing ideology and literature by the famous Hungarian influential critic Georg Lukacs writes the following words that I find very eloquent, to discuss any situation where the above fields of action meet. He uses the subject of a literary critic who is considered as one who holds, or at least he thought, he held some power. Steiner writes, and I quote at some length:

In the XXth century, it is not easy for an honest man to be a literary critic. There are so many more urgent things to be done. Indeed, criticism is the most ancillary Muse. For the art of the critic consists in bringing works of literature to the attention of precisely those readers who least require such concourse (does a man read critiques of poetry or drama or fiction unless he is already highly literate on his own?).

Steiner sees no need for a critic to interpret literature to those who are already educated and are familiar with the genres of literature. It is an unnecessary endeavor on the part of the literary critic. But the critic was always held as a power wielder, or at least the critic did think so. Steiner’s qualification of literary writing with the two tempters on either side applies not only to the critics but also to all others who seek to project the image of doing important things in the field of literature and writing. But I still want to stay with the other part of Steiner’s observation to enter the subject that is challenging, curiously valid in another guise, and does still hold water. Steiner qualifies the two tempters of the literary critic, whose Muse is minor, in this manner:

On either hand of this minor Muse, moreover, stand two tempters. To the right, literary history, with its solid air and academic credential. To the left, Book Reviewing–not really an art, but rather a technique committed to the implausible theory that something worth reading is published each morning in the year.

The two tempters in literary history with academic character has come to meet at the level of book review which is not art. That is an art of sensation announcing each morning that something great is available. Steiner sees the power of the temptation that has prevailed on our lives for the following reason:

Even the best of criticism may succumb to either temptation. Anxious to achieve intellectual respectability, the firm stance of the scholar, the critic may, … become a literary historian. Or he may yield to the claims of the novel and the immediate; … Good reviews are even more ephemeral than bad books (Steiner 1).

The above essay though written in 1960 surprisingly speaks about our situation today. A perennial battle between literary books the ‘ephemeral’ reviews has dominated literature today. A literary critic who was equated with power wielders, and was considered, like Lukacs himself, a theorist and shaker, lost his position. In other words, the literary history or major history itself has been succumbing to the power of the presentism, to the fake and the perilous contestation of truth and fake or the post-truth. The skepticism has come to doubt perhaps not only the literary criticism but also other literary genres too may have been losing the central role and becoming the supporting or, what Steiner calls the ancillary agencies. In the last year or so, I have been struggling with this very question of presentism and the sensational or uniting mechanism. Historians have been grappling with the contestation of what is durable or usable with the ephemeral or the fleeting. George Orwell’s book about a form of dystopian state in Nineteen eighty-four(1949) and the ‘double-speak’ has once again become a valid subject. The critics, theorists, thinkers, and historians have been struggling not only with the methodology but also with the nature of the subject itself. The anxiety described by historian Niall Ferguson (2017), Mark Dice (2017) just to mention a few books that have come out recently, and several others–no need to mention here– say anxiety that history has to cope with today. This conflict that Steiner depicted as two temptations experienced by a literary critic has come to represent the character of what the West is grappling with today making its impact on the question of value, canon, and sensation of information.

But where do we stand in this part of the world, or in South Asia or in Nepal? I want to simplify the subject and say the following. And I take the experience of Nepal. What I believe may well be the experience of the South Asian countries too. But I do not claim to speak about the region because I am not able to do so. I want to turn to Nepal with the above discussions and say how this clash between history and information, canon and information is influencing literature. I cannot mention names, for which I need a very long if not a book-length space. I write about the trends and make the conflict between history and events or canon and informational presentism.

I want to introduce the major tenets of literary writing in Nepal by imbricating that with the major modes and methods of literary criticism. I find this methodology or theory of imbrication quite helpful here. For lack of space, I only want to mention the trends, not least the failures and crises and some achievements of literary criticism like in every other literary tradition. Literature written in Nepali forms this basis for discussion here
Nepali literature now as in the past can be seen as a genre based writing as seen in literary criticism. The following are the attributes of criticism that imbricate with the literary genres:

. Nepali literary criticism is genre-based writing.
. Nepali literary criticism is deeply influenced by ideological matters.
. Nepali literary criticism is evoking the voice of gender and marginalized groups.
. Nepali literary criticism is becoming more of an academic genre; it is a favorite subject of academics and researchers.
. Nepali literary criticism is embroiled in the discussions of correct grammar.
. Literary criticism is shifting very fast towards the explosion of reviews in media and broadsheet papers, and other audio and visual systems.
. Nepali literary criticism is always a group or caucus friendly exercise.
. Literary criticism is written for power and to reflect the ruling ideologies.

The above attributes of literary criticism reflect the modes of literary writing in Nepali today. Literary writings always follow genre-specific writing, which create an imbrication with literary criticism. For example, poetry, fiction especially novel, drama and the other forms within them like free poetry, experimental poetry, Ghazal, Haiku, metrical writings also called Chanda system in writing are used by poets. Talking about the poetic genre, it is a pluralistic exercise of great significance. Any criticism that tends to sideline any of these forms runs into problems. Nepali poetic genre is a great example of coexistence. After the political change of 2006 and Nepal’s adoption of the federal Republican mode, literary writers appear to have felt freer in the use of subject matter. But new challenges have come in poetry in terms of standard, plurality, subject matter and the maintenance of a readable standard. Poems are published in daily papers. Literary magazines are few in numbers.

Nepali prose writing especially fiction writing or novel writing, for that matter, has been flourishing. Nepali novels of contemporary times have these qualities. They have maintained the genre-specific character. They are the most sensitive literary writings to the changing times. The Nepal of the last two decades has strongly come under the spell of the political transformations. A 250-years old monarchical institution collapsed under people’s power in 2008. The decade of Maoist insurgency (1996-2006) that ended after a comprehensive political agreement among all Nepali democratic parties with the rebels opened up tremendous possibilities of writing about experiences and memories. History became a very important subject. The lines separating the past times and the presentism became fuzzy. Writers did not quite know how to draw a line there. Real characters carried the aura of fictionality because of their role in politics. Various interpretative modes emerged, some of which even weaponized the past, but mainly chose to open up possibilities of making life easier and livable in the present times. That presentism was a new reality.

The views of Maffessoli, a well known French socialist are relevant here He says, “Let the world turn, events unfold, catastrophes strike, politics make a spectacle of itself; all that matters is a still point where what exists can be fully enjoyed.” interpreting tragedy Maffessoli says, “Tragedy, … is of the present, and is nothing but a series of actualizations: passions, thoughts, and creations that exhaust themselves in action, in acts of instantaneous expenditure, without reserve”(Maffesoli, 202). The writer and the reader met over this tragedy, over the ‘spectacles.’ In other words, they met over the presentism, over the process of actualization. The writer was a reader and vice-versa. As a result of this tenuous demarcation between fiction and reality, which was a result of the confusion that pervaded life after the war, Nepali writers sought to make a number actualizations, in the “instantaneous expenditure, without reserve’. What was at stake was not only life in the changed context but also the context itself that the writers and the society itself were trying to create for a new life. Novel writing became that process of actualization. Some well-known novelists developed a method of bringing fiction and reality together. They did so by naming the characters of their novels after the real political leaders. Secondly, they fictionalized strong presentism. But the efforts, to me, appeared to fail if not badly. This constant effort of the novelists to give fictional or historical quality to the forces of presentism that includes history and history makers was a totally new experience in contemporary Nepali fiction.

The other aspect is the publication of memoirs that included the memoirs of guerrilla women who have written about the experience, some harrowing but mostly idealized tales. The revolutionary’s writings evinced visceral quality which was a unique factor after the impersonal nature of the war. On the other side, identities that included ethnic and regional identities, gender and race formed the subject matter of fiction writing. We are in this experimental phase. A zero moment was realized in Nepali history, but that moment was not the end of hope and life experiments. Women novelists and fiction writers have emerged, which is a very significant phenomenon.

Poetry that was considered as the strongest genre flourished, but poets were bound by an impulse of sharing experiences. This sharing of experiences made Nepali poetry a little introverted and esoteric. But the media outlet that the poets chose made them exercise the presentism. A general effect of digital humanity was not a remote opening. A euphoric opening up of the cybernetic access opened Nepali literature hugely among the Nepalis residing abroad. Literary institutions, groups, and organizations are set up around the world wherever the Nepalis reached and started their new lives in those places. I have some very interesting experiences too. I do not want to mention them here. But one experience is worth telling here. In one Gulf country, I had an interesting experience. Nepali writers working in that country invited me over to give a talk on the great Nepali poet Laxmi Prasad Devkota in November 2010. The young Nepalis who were also enthusiastic about writing poetry invited me over to their program one evening. After the program, they gave me a framed letter of appreciation. The most striking part was this—”we want to appreciate you young Professor Abhi Subedi for your contribution…” etc. That was a few years ago; I was flattered by the appellation, which was humorous. But I could see the energy and enthusiasm of the Nepali poets working and living abroad. That euphoria, that sense of timelessness, and that dedication to totalism and that visceral energy speaks volumes about the energy of Nepali literary writing in the diaspora.

The lure of English is also associated with the new energy. Some Nepali writers write with near-native proficiency. Some well known among them live abroad. There is a great interest in translating Nepali literary works, especially poetry, into English to reach out to the wider readership. But there are problems in this direction. Apart from a few good translations, this euphoria could give the opposite picture of Nepali literature. But the efforts of individuals and organizations are underway.

The other very powerful feature of contemporary Nepali writing is the production and writing of plays. The purpose of writing the plays is both pedagogic and production on stage. A number of strong plays are being written, published and produced. Critics from Nepal and abroad have written about the contemporary times in Nepali literature. The other important aspect of literature in Nepal is the production and reading of literature written in languages other than Nepali. At the moment the readership is available for such literature among the language groups, but there are translations also available especially from Newari into Nepali. Some very good works are translated into Nepali and English. Maithili, Awadhi, and Bhojpuri literature have strong traditions. In contemporary times, Maithili poets and playwrights have published very good works some of which I have been able to decipher. As the scope of this paper covers Nepali literature mainly and that the question of comprehension is there, I should not pretend to write about these literary traditions. But the literary scenario of Nepal shows the mood and achievements of the changing times. The other question is the production and reading of different voices, including those of the disenfranchised people. Literature in Nepali in recent times is producing works that are written about the subaltern people and the ethnic power of aesthetics. This is a new development and is sure to bring new energy in Nepali literary writing. The total experience of writing in Nepal is related to this tremendous resurgence of voices and aesthetic perceptions and experimentations. As in every literary tradition, the test of any literary work lies in the quality of the writing, which is what makes up not an only literary tradition but also the individual talent.

The imbrication of criticism and literary writing based on genres and other features raised by both forms continues to live in a mode which is dialogic and crisis-oriented. But the crises is one of the realizations of a need to be more authentic in all areas. The very good literary criticism written by the critic of the erstwhile time like Yadunath Khanal (Khanal 2011) and some others are still valid not only for literary pedagogy but also for general reading. But Nepali literary writing has to accept the challenge of the new times. The results will be either great openings and success or some form of crisis of adjustment in the process of creating cumulative energy.

*****

References

Subedi, Abhi, “Rainbow journal.” The Kathmandu Post, 25 Dec 2016.
Steiner, George. “Georg Lukacs and his devil’s pact.” The Kenyon Review, Vol. XXII, winter, 1960 No.1
Dice, Mark. The True Story of Fake News. San Diego, CA: The Resistance Manifesto. 2017. iBook.
Ferguson, Niall. The Square and the Tower: Networks, Hierarchies and the Struggle for Global Power.” Allen Lane, 2017. iBook.
Maffesoli, Michel. (trans Karen Isabel Ocaña), “Everyday Tragedy and Creation.”
Cultural Studies Vol. 18, No. 2/3 March/May 2004, pp. 201–210.
Khanal, Yadunath (2011). Yadunath Khanalka Samalochana. Kathmandu: Nepal Pragya Pratisthan.