Misconception
I have been widely aware of the youth attempting to enter the literary world with their entries in both prose and poetry; perhaps, I am one of those. Some were fine, but most likely, some wrote without knowing the basic aesthetics of literature and the tradition. I, myself, cannot criticize them because I may not be a good judge as well, but as a literature major, I may have something to say about it. I think, before writing anything else, one must learn first the Great Tradition of Literature and its existing theories and standards. I often read in youth nowadays, being rebellious spirits as they are, that one can write anything without even reading the literature of the masters since they believe that if they write, they just write and voice out their opinions or their attempts to literature. They seldom acknowledge the pioneers of the given field and so they try to create their own. But what is a written piece, without any tinge of aesthetics and is not crafted by intellect? In Arts, although everything may seem to be an art, but an art piece is considered a trash without following the conditions and aesthetics of the Arts. And so perhaps this could also be the same in Literature or in any other field. That before starting to create a literary piece, you should consider first studying it, reading and evaluating ideas before you create your own.
I believe in reading and learning first. One must open himself to the different lessons the world has to offer and the possibilities of wisdom. If I may quote Arthur Rimbaud’s statement,
I understood that what I needed to become the first poet of this century is to experience everything in my body. It’s no longer enough for me to be one person, I decided to be everyone. I decided to be a genius. I decided to originate the future.
An idealistic statement, but I believe it is promising. The way I fathom this is that, a person for him to be a poet, must come out from his comfort zone and expose himself to all the possibilities of learning. And in learning, it is not only a mere knowing, but also understanding and contemplating it as well, so experience itself is also is of great help.
My Image of a Poet
I believe a poet should never posses a closed-mind, but a mind that is willing to see the various aspects of possibilities. He should posses a body, a mind and a heart that is willing to experience, to think and to feel the world around him, so as to write something that is worth considering “literary”. A poet should always yearn for learning, for him to grow, develop and innovate. And that is only possible if the poet admit to himself that he does not know everything yet. As Wislawa Szymborska said,
Poets, if they're genuine, must also keep repeating "I don't know." Each poem marks an effort to answer this statement, but as soon as the final period hits the page, the poet begins to hesitate, starts to realize that this particular answer was pure makeshift that's absolutely inadequate to boot. So the poets keep on trying, and sooner or later the consecutive results of their self-dissatisfaction are clipped together with a giant paperclip by literary historians and called their "oeuvre”...
I would also cite a related perspective on this, which is Zen Philosophy of “emptiness”. A famous tale in Zen is about a cup and its parallelism to the mind of a Zen disciple. A cup should be emptied first before you can pour more on it, or else it would overflow and be wasted. It is also like a Zen disciple’s mind, sometimes there should be gaps and empty spaces, for the Zen master to shower him wisdom.
Another ideology that is related to the given topic is Isaak Bashevis Singer’s concept of the “as if”. As a person, we do not know any better. Mysteries and enigmas would always be present. That “as if”, signifies uncertainty but at the same time it presents to us a hope that things could be better. And so we human beings dwell on these “as ifs” that serve as purposes for us to live and for us to aspire for new things to discern.
These three concepts, the “I don’t know” of Szymborska, the “Emptiness” of Zen, and the “As If” of Singer are crucial to a poet’s mind. Although we know poets should be intellectual, they also should admit to themselves that there are things that they hardly knew yet and they are willing to discover. And through that piece of ignorance, they would explore and be able to widen their knowledge of the world. Szymborska has said in her Nobel Lecture,
This is why I value that little phrase "I don't know" so highly. It's small, but it flies on mighty wings. It expands our lives to include the spaces within us as well as those outer expanses in which our tiny Earth hangs suspended. If Isaac Newton had never said to himself "I don't know," the apples in his little orchard might have dropped to the ground like hailstones and at best he would have stooped to pick them up and gobble them with gusto. Had my compatriot Marie Sklodowska-Curie never said to herself "I don't know", she probably would have wound up teaching chemistry at some private high school for young ladies from good families, and would have ended her days performing this otherwise perfectly respectable job. But she kept on saying "I don't know," and these words led her, not just once but twice, to Stockholm, where restless, questing spirits are occasionally rewarded with the Nobel Prize. These instances could have proved that if only people are admit to themselves a speck of illiteracy, then they could use that as reason to explore more. And through filling up those empty spaces, they have managed to do something worthwhile.
The Susceptibility of Senses, Awareness and Hope
Senses too are significant for the poets and writers. They should never close and stop their eyes, noses, ears, mouths and skin from experiencing the world. Kensaburo Oe, mentioned his son, Hikari in his Nobel Lecture. Hikari is a handicapped who seemed to be living in his own world, but in contrast to that, he is more open to others. His autism might caused him inability to interact with the world, but at the same time it also helped him to be more open to those things that other human beings have not paid attention too, like the language of the birds. In his darkness, he had pursued his way to attain his own light and the process itself is in his search, is both mysterious and beautiful at the same time. Mysterious, because it is never explainable on how such thing has happened, and beautiful, because such quite impossible has been revealed as possible. In that story, it presented also the concept that although writers are more vulnerable than the others, they are perceptive in everything else that exists in their world, perhaps even to those who are non-existent, like illusions. Again, in the situation of Hikari, he may seem vulnerable, but he had understood and knew what others would never have done. This is quite the same as what Gao Xianjian has said in his Nobel Speech,
A writer is an ordinary person, perhaps he is more sensitive but people who are highly sensitive are often more frail. A writer does not speak as the spokesperson of the people or as the embodiment of righteousness. His voice is inevitably weak but it is precisely this voice of the individual that is more authentic.
Nowadays in my country, I could have agreed upon what Gao has said because as far as I am aware of, writers are often neglected in this country. Writers have voices which are inevitably weak because, let us admit the fact that in a country where in economic crises are always present, writers and thinkers will never be the heroes, but the laborers and the Overseas Filipino Workers. Maybe, writers would just stand in the boundary of the sidelines and never in the mainstream. But nonetheless, although in this country most often people think writers are of less significance, the writer’s voice is the sole voice that remains precisely authentic. Perhaps, the writers are the ones who are untainted by the economic needs that metamorphosed people to act like a commodity or machines. As John Keating in Dead Poets Society said,
We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.
If everything is about science and mathematics without a single tinge of humanities, can we feel we are human beings and not just machines working in a routine just for survival, like what Albert Camus described as an absurd life? So apart from them, at least writers exist to balance that system. Writers contribute to the aesthetics of life that become purposes for people to continue living. Also, writers do not only envision hopes and ideas or transformed their realities into words to create leisure for people, but they would always have something to say about their views of the society and the world, Francisco Sionil Jose for example. In his novels and newspapers articles, he does not only merely creating sources of diversion for people, but also instigating awareness of the current events and situations in our country. Isaak Bashevis Singer in his Nobel Lecture stated that,
While the poet entertains he continues to search for eternal truths, for the essence of being. In his own fashion he tries to solve the riddle of time and change, to find an answer to suffering, to reveal love in the very abyss of cruelty and injustice. Strange as these words may sound I often play with the idea that when all the social theories collapse and wars and revolutions leave humanity in utter gloom, the poet - whom Plato banned from his Republic - may rise up to save us all.
Personally, I have always loved auspicious statements like this. It allows me to hope that this country is not that doomed to failure, as long as the writers exist. Again, quite idealistic if the context is of today. But future is yet unfolding, and we have no capacity to foresee that someday, this idealistic vision of Singer could be a fact.
The Literary Pieces
Gimpel The Fool by Isaak Bashevis Singer presented the concept of the text as the text itself. In studying this work, it may appear simple, perplexing, pointless, imbecile etc. But that is not the point of Singer, the implication of the text should not be the most significant turning point of a literary text, but it should be the text itself. Through this concept we can derive Stanley Fish’s Intentional Fallacy, in which it stated that, “The text is good and so intentions should be there.” Could there be a text that could be apart from affection? In affective stylistics, the readers should pay attention not to the meaning, but to what the text is affecting you. The meaning of the text does not only reside on how the readers interpreted it, but also to the process of a particular reading. One must relish the text while reading it and not just evaluating it by its implications. The craft itself in making a literary text or poetry is important, and so the literary texts’ value should never be judged and reduced only to its point. A text is a self-consuming artifact in which the process itself on how you read a certain text is also the meaning of the text. Interpreting it in various ways could alter the real point of the text, because we know for a fact that people have different paradigms in mind. And so, the interpretations would always vary and then conflicts will arise, when in fact, that is not the way to evaluate the totality of the text itself.
I believe that each literary work corresponds a meaning to itself, or it reflects a certain reality that the writer would want to reveal to his readers but then, we should not denounced the significance of the text on to that. Why would writers waste their times choosing appropriate words, composing lines which please the ears or learning to master the art of writing, if people would only go after the meaning of the text? Another example to this concept is what Pablo Neruda in the film, Il Postino, mentioned,
When you explain poetry, it becomes banal. Better than any explanation is the experience of feelings that poetry can reveal to a nature open enough to understand it.
Discussing poetry and agreeing on a fixed interpretation about the poem, makes the poem dull and uninteresting. It hampers the possibility of a text revealing its own brilliance. Poetry conceals an enigma in its beauty and that is why it would always be beautiful and preserved.
Literary Works Measured by Illusory Yardsticks
I have not yet known all the theories and each fiber of Literature, but as someone who aspires to learn more about Literature, this is my take on this matter:
I believe a good literature should not be a copy of someone’s work, but something that has been created through the way the writer has crafted using his own senses. But I do not go against Aristotle’s concept of Mimesis, because I also do believe that imitation of action if different from copying. A start of creating a good literature is when you had thought of your own idea and in your own way of perceiving it. An example is when you are thinking first of the theme of your work. Themes are limited, but could be limitless too, depending on whose perspective. But no matter how one can view that argument, there would always be an instance wherein your themes could be similar to other writers. But yours could be unique if you crafted it in your own-- using what you have learned and what your ideas are. As long as it is yours, it would always be apart from everything else. Szymborska said in her Nobel lecture,
But in the language of poetry, where every word is weighed, nothing is usual or normal. Not a single stone and not a single cloud above it. Not a single day and not a single night after it. And above all, not a single existence, not anyone's existence in this world.
But nevertheless, I also believe that good is a relative term. There are also numerous measurements in Literature, that a quite not-so-good Literature might be undetermined. Post-structuralist introduced deconstructing a text. In giant simulacra where ideas and different truths are intertwined, seeking for the absolute is impossible, since each one of us beholds our own idea of truth or what is good. And maybe that is also why objectivity for Michel de Montaigne would always remain as an illusion. There could never be something which is accurately objective, since we are not even sure what the real truth is or what the real standards are.
But again, the myth that exists about Literature, cannot be entirely eradicated in a system. As Roland Barthes said, “Myth is a lie fabricated, but you cannot live without it.” Since we cannot instruct anyone about what is “supposedly to be done” because each one is already born with signs and standards, that sometimes are impossible to disentangle with one’s mind. So perhaps, this myth will never decease but would continually perpetuate, but as long as there are deconstructionists, those myths could be minimized, at least.
My Quintessence of a Contemporary Literature
Traditions and Masterpieces in Literature are important, but if they are continuously recurring, they would lose their significance. As Pablo Neruda said in Il Postino, “Even the most sublime ideas sound ridiculous if heard too often.“ It is because, when the ideas, concepts or ideologies became too repetitive, they would no longer be rare, but representations of mediocrity. Canonical Works of the past are present not to be duplicated, but to serve as foundations for improvement and development. They also serve as basis, for the poets and the writers to know what has been done and what has not been done yet.
My idea of a contemporary Literature is mostly influenced by Jelenek. Apart from those I know in the Literary Community, Jelenek’s word so far is the most exceptional because she has managed to create a subject that is entirely different from the previous works in Literature.
The sidelines are at the service of the life, that precisely does not take place there, otherwise we would not all be in the thick of it, in the fullness, the fullness of human life, and it is at the service of the observation of the life, which is always taking place somewhere else. Where one is not. Why insult someone, because he cannot find his way back to the path of journeying, of life, of life’s journey, if he has borne it - and this bearing is no bearing someone, but nor is it any kind of bearing on - has simply fortuitously borne it, like the dust on a pair of shoes, which is pitilessly hunted down by the housewife, if a little less pitilessly than the stranger is hunted down by the locals.
Jelenek, in her Nobel Speech entitled Sidelined discussed about the topics of her works that could be considered as abjects as what Kristeva distinguished it or the topics that is not included in the customary or inside the mainstream. There are many topics that has already been used over a thousand times, that they have lost their essence and so Jelenek chose to explore what are those beyond the normal boundary of themes in Literature. She has proposed the sidelined topics like abjects and abnormalities that have always been present but most people constantly reject because it is not the usual. But through this step, Jelenek has expounded the scope of Literature by her exploration of those which falls under the sidelined. She also delved into these topics about fetishism that is not acceptable to the society and so as questioning the use of language.
My only protector against being described, language, which, conversely, exists to describe something else, that I am not - that is why I cover so much paper - my only protector is turning against me. Perhaps I only keep him at all, so that he, while pretending to protect me, pounces on me. Because I sought protection in writing, this being on my way, language, which in motion, in speaking, appeared to be a safe shelter, turns against me. No wonder. I mistrusted it immediately, after all. What kind of camouflage is that, which exists, not to make one invisible, but ever more distinct?
We think language enables us to convey reality, but the truth is we, just like everyone else, is just looking and using language based on our own mindsets. We think objects are all signifiers that signify something, but in fact, we sometimes barely recognize the multitude of meaning the signifier could present to us. Jelenek provides a discussion about that. She has destroyed constructs that were formulated even before, like the idea of a coming of age story and epiphanies, which became another stepping stone for Literature to flourish in a different level in another aspect.
I also believe in the concept of reinventing Literature. Jelenek has already proposed to that by creating her abjects, but earlier to her, I think Rimbaud had already perceived these thoughts. His actions and perspectives are beyond comprehension of those people in his time. Like Jelenek, his ideas were hard to perceive by the closed-minded individuals. But being a free-spirited as he was, he chose to be different, apart from the rules and norms of the society. He could have tried to deconstruct what is the traditional, and creating other possibilities which has always exists but often ignored by the people. But the more open-minded people of the latter times after his death learned to appreciate his poetics. An example of a highly-recognized writer that believed is Pablo Neruda. In his Nobel Lecture, he remarked the prophecy of Rimbaud,
I believe in this prophecy of Rimbaud, the Visionary. I come from a dark region, from a land separated from all others by the steep contours of its geography. I was the most forlorn of poets and my poetry was provincial, oppressed and rainy. But always I had put my trust in man. I never lost hope. It is perhaps because of this that I have reached as far as I now have with my poetry and also with my banner.
Lastly, I wish to say to the people of good will, to the workers, to the poets, that the whole future has been expressed in this line by Rimbaud: only with a burning patience can we conquer the splendid City which will give light, justice and dignity to all mankind
Indeed it another ambitious vision of Rimbaud, but who are we to judge if we have not seen the end?
Others Insights
Literature should not oppress the ignorant, but enlighten them. I have noticed how elitist other writers could be by always criticizing a developing literature enthusiast or a plain literary text, but then they are complaining too they are not widely-read. I think it is because these writers confine themselves on their visionaries and caprices alone. I believe writers, should have a purpose for writing, but it should not be of vain reasons. The literary people, to promote literature should not curb their thoughts by themselves. Knowledge should be imparted to everyone else. Another thing, I have noticed that other writers whined that people of these times gave less and less importance to literature. But I think, the reason why it has become like that is because they sometimes presented literature as grandiose, “dandy”, profound and can only be understood by the capable ones when in fact, it could have been learned and studied by everyone. Again, I think they are building restrictions to literature and because of vanities; Literature could have lost its purposes. I think, it should be open to different people, to various insights and possibilities for it to flourish even more.
From all this, my friends, there arises an insight which the poet must learn through other people. There is no insurmountable solitude. All paths lead to the same goal: to convey to others what we are. (Neruda, 1993)
