Karan M wrote:brihaspati wrote:That is the primary question - can you admire Kipling's verse while realizing how he is constructing the role of the "east" as a devoted servant in his "East is is East" verse? Someone who is doing this, is already halfway through accepting or tolerating the very idea of subservience - if it is packaged nicely in golden verse.
Hmmm....where exactly in "If" is he doing any of this? I do think that you are protesting too hard...
Seems to me that almost half of this stuff which you accuse others of doing seems to be only in your own imagination..
Oh really, you still don't see it? Maybe you read it a long time ago so dont remember.
If that is not the case, then you can you have a look again at the last few lines before the refrain? I do think you are defending too hard....
You might find it amusing, and as expected your reaction is more defensive of your justification of separation of enjoyment from content.
Its not defensive at all...it was actually quite exact & appropriate regarding your apparent tantrum at other persons who could appreciate a literary work or figure without getting into each and every issue regarding that "literature" or anything and every regarding the person/literature
By your standards, if I have to read a research paper from Harvard I have to contemplate the impact of the institution in breeding unethical businessmen who may have been involved in the financial industry collapse..
Or if I find something interesting in how the German Army organized and fought WW2, boohoo...I have to give a PC shout about the atrocities of the WaffenSS..
The list doesn't end does it.
Impressive attempt at being logical, but completely irrelevant. What you say would make sense, if and only if that Harvard research paper was also promoting unethical business practices within that researh paper as a subtext.
Your quoting of the German army and the waffenss is very very interesting, for the consensus is that the WaffenSS was never really part of the regular army, even though formal tactical command appears to have been given on mobilization to the HC. By bringing this example in your sarcasm, you are comparing the sadist authors like Kipling to the "good German army" and laying all the "atrocities" at the door of the "bad waffenSS" types like Rex Dyer? And you are claiming that you are not any part of any whitewashing? The separation of the "good German army" forced to do bad things, and all blame on the waffenSS is a very old phenomenon and strategy.
None of your examples fit in case of Kipling, because he did openly come out in support of Dyer's atrocity. And if you take time to remember the verse in dispute, well, maybe, just maybe you will change your opinion.
Did you ever point out the imperialist dogma and degrading model sought to be imposed in the last few lines of the "east is east" verse to anyone else - at school, at home or your next generation - while showing your delight in the "verse" and the pure literary joy of the verse? I do find much greater anger, and a much quicker response against any direct criticism of English literature as text that pushes for acceptance of British/white/Christian supremacy - from supposedly extremely aware Indians - than they are in exposing or pointing out these "insidious" stuff to others in the appreciation societies.
If I did point this out, what do you or don't you know about it? Besides which are you the self appointed of Indian nationalism on the internet? I find your assumptions about folks you don't even know, amusing. Especially since you have parked yourself in the very midst of the western imperialists and are happily eating off of them. Two can play at this game.
Oh, this is not playing a game at all! Even if I am eating "off" imperialists [unfortunately for you I am not parked in an ex-imperialist country!] at least I am eating off them and thereby reducing their ill-gotten wealth, while if you are not parked among imperialists and still acting eager at the leash to defend the image and reputation of long gone masters - then you are eating off non-imperialists to whitewash imperialists!
Second, if you do find much greater anger from Indians that question criticism of English literature & its contribution to western hegemony, do something about it. Like I said, create a site, not some amateur blog, and be prepared to spend some serious effort combating this perception. Otherwise, you lack any locus standi to jump down other folks throats for not being very caught up with combating "western hegemony"...hard for the rest of us, to worry about all that when India's own issues take precedence.
Ah! so a site is professional and a blog is amateur? news for lots of professional folks having professional blogs! or is it a learned behaviour from imperialists about subtly associating hierarchies and denigrations in status by the mere turn of words? I am not a professional literary critique, or even a writer of fiction even if my first literary work will come out soon. If you care to be honest about it, surely you know that there are a whole lot of people from within the English literary circle who crtique the colonial/oreintalist subtext of the authors concerned, and yes they do have their own professional spheres where they talk and write about it. If I have time in about 5 years time, yes, I will try to do my own small bits about it. Meanwhile, since you are keen on it - why dont you make a start?
As it happens, I found both Blyton and Lovecroft, rather poor literature.
Sure you did. But thats your opinion. Didn't see any books with "Brihaspati" or "Jupiter" or "Gas Giant" in any book store yet. If I do, and see huge debates about it, I might be willing to take your opinions on what constitute good literature (or not) under advisement...
By that same logic, none of your brilliant literature need be liked by me either. So far I don't remember trying to drag in "Karan M" or "Mkaran" or any of its possible mutations in half a dozen Indian languages in my posts. Or is this sort of personal name-calling also something you picked up from your admired icons?
Again a matter of opinion, and compares nowhere in the genre with Bester, or a Card, or Zamyatin, or Haldeman - if you are looking at scifi in the backdrop of a militarized state.
Gee, how educative...I quote one example...and you have to "one-up". Is that supposed to be impressive? Are we going to be comparing Nebula awards next.
Besides which your opinion is equally countered by those who enjoyed Heinlein (or were repulsed by it).
Oh, sorry, my bad! It didnt occur to me that you were dropping his name to show off in the first place! I didnt see it as one-upmanship, but you would of course if that was your original motivation. Apologies for hurting your showmanship.
Conan is supposed to have popularized the sword & sandal genre. Again, an American - the author died young. If you read his books, its often a simplistic paean to some pagan glorious western culture, but he did make an occasional effort to research about other non western cultures (Khitai = China, Vindhyas = India and so forth).
Conan is an epitome of enjoyable literature for you? Of course, its a matter of personal taste.
LOL - did I say Conan was enjoyable anywhere above? You seem to have serious issues with reading comprehension - talk about being defensive, and trying to score points where none exist! Read it again "Conan is supposed to have popularized the sword & sandal genre."...and "If you read his books, its often a simplistic paean to some pagan glorious western culture".
I did not realize that you were wandering off from the topic - which was about English literature being immensely enjoyable regardless of any subtext of imperialism. I should not have assumed that this was a continuation of examples to illustrate your claims about imperialism-enjoyable-literature. Accusing others rampantly of non-"Comprehension" + use of ellipsis - you are not any reincarnation of the lor dof the moon, are you?
This is supposed to be me finding it enjoyable!
As regards personal taste, I am sure none here can compare with your glorious personal taste, with what it must have traversed, but then again, who's trying.
Sure, it will be impossible to bridge the gap between your tastes and mine, especially if you find Conan a quotable illustration of your thesis.
No one is asking to be isolated [there goes the subliminal message again - if you are not appreciating and enjoying what English literature dishes out - you are in a hencoop]. What I responded to - was the prompt putting up of the "good English heart" behind an author otherwise openly and viciously imperialist and racist in his texts, and whose that particular side was simply being highlighted by a poster.
My goodness, subliminal messages now! My, my - the powers that I have. Corrupting the innocents of BRF, all decked up in my regulation Clive era uniform.
Lets see - so we are communicating in a language, invented by the openly and viciously imperialist Brits, but that doesn't bother you. But it does bother you if someone points out the common sense fact that given that we know the language its up to each person to see what literary works were written in it & enjoy them as need be. Seriously...the irony in your own position is lost to you.
Great logical thinking. By that logic, since Pakistan is a reality, and we have to deal with Pakistanis, in international processes in ways that remain the only channels available to engage - we have to enjoy that engagement, or see what enjoyment we can derive from such engagements. Perhaps even forget what forces created this Pakistan, and the fact that those forces are very much alive and kicking and will repeat the process again whenever opportune. Maybe, by analogy, we must learn to appreciate the brilliance shown by various authors of Paki moves within that sphere of engagement - and separate it out from Paki atrocity, or the original creators of this situation behind the Pakis that force us to enage the Pakis in this way.
English has become a means of communication and engagement between Indians from now drifted apart Indic language threads, but that does not imply that we have to forget the very role of English in sharpening that drift. Or the imperialist project behind that very supremacy of English. You see irony where I see shame and a tragedy. That is the difference between you and me.
Seriously, its ok to have a bee in your bonnet - everyone does, as you quite ably demonstrated by taking the Noor Inayat Khan angle OT (I wonder how viciously imperialist and racist that girl was, as she was being tortured to death), but dear sir, when you abrogate yourself the privilege of all that is good & proper....sorry, you aren't going to convince everyone else.
No, no need to convince anyone. Just pointed out my objection to the whitewashing.
One cannot help sensing a sense of identification with the British, a subconscious sympathy for and acceptance of the totality of the identity - helped along by the supposedly brilliant literary flourish.
LOL, at both your chutzpah & amateur pisko-babble. So one doesn't agree with your histrionics regarding a bunch of dead Brit authors - some of whom (ouch!) were pretty good at writing (if not much else) & one automatically has "sense of identification with the British".
Dear sir - spare me your psycho babble - please. Most folks here (and elsewhere) were countering the Brits quite effectively without having self proclaimed experts like you arrive, with your oh so developed literary taste & gilt edged nationalist credentials (cough, cough). We'll get by without you as well..
Well, your kind of appreciation of colonialist literature, is getting rarer now too. We already get by without you and your appreciation too.
If folks are serious about this - start a website - not a blog, about deconstructing British authors of the Raj, pointing out the more obvious racist swipes & such like. Thats useful.
People who read these books & miss the subcontext may be helped. People on this website though, are unlikely to be at that level. We crossed that bridge a long time back. We can read Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and appreciate it, while rolling our eyes at some of his fantastical rubbish about the Lost World (masala fantasy at its worst). Bottomline - there's no standard appreciation society here, if that's what you are worried about.
I am not worried. Thankfully - a large number of Indians do miss out - out of necessity, the so-called literary brilliance of the English. Those who are so confident of having crossed the bridge, might be the most vulnerable actually. Those odd pieces of biographical information, or the logic of forgiving an inherently genocidal ideological bias because of literary brilliance - pave the way for softening resistance. That appreciation of literature for literature's sake, often covers for an acceptance of the values and perceptions of the admired sources.
LOL - so lets see here. A practical call to arms re the website? Ignored. Too much effort, and too much work clearly. Better to sit and engage in idle banter & crocodile tear coated worries about "the confidence of those who crossed the bridge".
Tell you what dear Brihaspati, you can save our souls, once you cross the bridge by doing something practical about it...like actually proceeding on some practical lines, as versus sitting in UK stan or Amreeka stan...and covering your guilt about us poor, at danger Indoos, by solemnly warning us.
Oh you mean a superior "site" and not a lowly "blog"? As I said, wrong guesses about whom I eat off.
And, yes plenty more qualified and professional people already do so in their literary circles - maybe your kind doesnt like to explore critiques of your imperialist brilliant literary icons? I am much lower in the pecking order! [you are fond of hierarchies arent you, with your superior "sites" compared to lowly "amateur blogs"!]
And regards "odd pieces of biographical information" - dear sir, I couldn't in any way, compare with you. You, in your own words, are literally a renaissance man. Need one quote your own snippets to you?
There is no literary "renaissance" period as far as I know - they seem to simply dub stages characterized by styles, focus etc.
By the way - there has been a lot of work on how the very sense of literary appreciation is constructed, by early or educational conditioning. If you write out the texts you "appreciate", and note where you first encountered them - through whom and in what environment, you will see a pattern of selection, often guided by your school, adult opinion, and so-called "peer reco", which agin takes its cues from other selectors.
Actually, very little about my "literary appreciation" (seems overly formal for something as simple as liking a few works/books) is guided by anything formal.
Still, if you care, simply write down the books names against where, and through whom you came across them - it might show up some interesting patterns.
I rarely hear appreciations of Quincey's confessions of an English opium eater, for example, or the peculiar ref to India in Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, or George Ade's stories of benevolent assimilation, or Howard Crosby's Swords and plowshares, or Dean Howell's between the dark and the daylight. PS : forgot to add Steinbeck and Grapes of wrath, or even Cranes careful explorations in the red badge of courage. How about Jean Rhys?
Perhaps because some of these books were not to one's own tastes for instance! Lady Chatterley's lover was a particular favorite for some folks in earlier days, I doubt they particularly cared about the intellectual claims of having read it....but their aims were very different. I believe they got by with other "substitutes" later.
Seriously, overanalysis....is all very good, but no wonder you are jumping at shadows.
LCL contains little ahem ahem, just one or two pages - compared to what was available otherwise. There is a connection to BIA and India though and war and its consequences.
but with a number from North African backgrounds and some being white or Afro-Caribbean Islamic converts. 