When does a work is called a literature and as a junk?What judges it? What is the parameter?Is it people's acceptance or pundits acceptance?
Its the pundits acceptance.Its the literary critics who accept a work as a masterpiece.Only when we get their stamp of approval we can call anything as masterpiece.This is the way literature is created.This is how junk is seperated from quality stuff.
When a book is published it is torn apart into pieces by the literature critics.They discuss it page by page.Some critic calls it as junk,some calls it great,some call it average...the debate goes on and finally a consensus emerges.The work is popular or not doesnt matter.The aesthetics,the grammar,style and the utility(valued less nowadays) is given paramount importance.
Its critics who judge master pieces.Interestingly the work's contribution to society is given very less importance.Have we heard of "slavery in England in 19th century?"-It was an important social work.It was widely recieved by public and created a social awareness among public.But critics rated it poorly after a heated debate.Now nobody knows about it.They rated uncle tom's cabin by charles dickens which highlighted the same problem very high.Not becasue of its utility to the society,but only because of its aesthetics.The message of the novel was called as a "skeleton".Useless stuff.Dickens was rated high since he decorated and hid the skeleton.
Only critics decide literature.Not public.Never.The works that are torn apart by critics and emerge as consensus candidate are accepted as masterpieces.Thats the world norm.That was the norm of the sangam age tamils.Tamil sangams accepted and hailed thirukural.They tore apart kamba ramayanam but accepted it in the end.
By applying such criticism's I said our work is junk.In fact we dont have many such critics in our state.Subbudu is there for bharatha natyam.Ananda vikatan is there for movies.For books and novels mainline magazines do a bit.But we dont have full fledged literary critics.Dinamani criticizes books to an extent.But we dont have heated arguments and debates on it.
Popular appeal is never taken into consideration dr.Im sorry.The public verdict is viewed with disdain by critics.I have seen some of the criticisms about Dickens novels.He is literally torn apart and hung like a slaughtered goat by critics.But in end they accept him as a great author.That criticisms make a work great.That culture died in tamilnadu after Malik gaffor's invasion.
All the movies you mentioned were hit.You might listen to them before you sleep.But were they accepted by critics?Were they screened in film festivals and debated?Thats recognition of quality stuff doctor.Mass appeal and public verdict might look glamorous.But that wont make your work great.Never.Subbudu's approval make you a great dancer.Not the tv ratings your programs fetch,not the public acceptance you get.critics give you immortality.Public give you money and temporary fame.
I dont buy the argument of sheldon being a pornist.He uses porn as a part of life in his book.He uses porn since his characters did that.If they murder he writes murder.Its not my view.Sheldon and forsyth have been rated as "THE BEST" by critics.So they are THE BEST.
All your ratings of forsyth were similiar to the critics opinion too.But you left out an important work of forsyth."day of the jackal".It is his best ever book.
Money to our authors is not a consideration doctor.Let them rite junk too.Kalki too was writing for ananda vikatan every week.He too had to produce lots of short stories to run his profession.But he spent some time for himself and created masterpieces like PS and SS.Where is such a master piece for other novelists?Even Kalki produced ordinary stuff like "poi man karadu".But he had time to create PS.You create some qulaity stuff occasionally to prove that you arent ordinary.And do ordinary stuff in the mean time.Else you are ordinary.
I called bharathiraja soft pornist since he isnt a hard pornist like surya(new) or selvaragavan.His alaigal oivathillai,tik tik tik, was porn work.I dont object porn since its porn.That too is an art form.But he did not know to portray porn.His porn was abasam.Nabakov portrayed porn in his novel Lolita.That book was even banned for some time.But as long as sun and moon exists lolita will live.Such was the quality of that novel.Crtics hail it as the masterpiece of nabakov and accepted him as an intellectual only because of Humbert Humprey in Lolita.The aesthetics of that book won it that acclaims.Such critics will dump bharathiraaja's porn in waste paper basket.Its like difference between saroja devi stuff and kamathu pal of valluvar.
public never give immortality to a work doctor.They give money.Immortality is given by critics.Thats the norm of literature.
But we dont have full fledged literary critics.Dinamani criticizes books to an extent.But we dont have heated arguments and debates on it.
I agree
Public give you money and temporary fame.
Unfortunately thats what gets people going when they have mouths to feed....not everybody is a bharathi...sad but true.
"THE BEST" by critics.So they are THE BEST STORY TELLERS.(I agree with Forsyth But I think ARCHER and Wallace are better authors than Sheldon)
All your ratings of forsyth were similiar to the critics opinion too.But you left out an important work of forsyth."day of the jackal".It is his best ever book. I totally agree Thats his pinnacle and obvious to everyone so I didnt include it but If you havent read the Veteran a short story collection and you ll understand why I said Whispering Wind is amazing.
Public never give immortality to a work doctor.They give money.Immortality is given by critics.Thats the norm of literature.
Unless the public embrace the critics choice it just becomes a statistic or withers into oblivion priya
Looks like we have an interesting literary discussion here.I enjoy debating literature with scholars a lot.
> Public give you money and temporary fame. > > Unfortunately thats what gets people going when they have mouths to > feed....not everybody is a bharathi...sad but true.
sad or not.Literature is for the sake of literature.Art is for sake of art.Masterpieces like mobydick were produced when their authors were in the height of poverty.Public money and public fame is not given importance when critics tear apart books.Public recognition and opinion is pooh poohed.Isnt that a great system?A critic never bending before anybody and saying "Netrikan thirapinum kutram kutrame.."Nakkira did not change his opinion even when public,pandya king and even lord qaccepted the poem.Such is the might of critics.
> "THE BEST" by critics.So they are THE BEST STORY TELLERS.(I agree > with Forsyth But I think ARCHER and Wallace are better authors than Sheldon)
Archer is great.Yes.
> Unless the public embrace the critics choice it just becomes a > statistic or withers into oblivion priya
Public are free only to agree with critics.Its a wonderful coincidence that in most of the times they agree with critics.But in case of people disagreeing with critics,critics prevail still.Public opinion seldom decides a masterpiece.In fact it never does.Mobydick was hailed as a masterpiece 50 years before it became a best seller.The author of the book, herman melville died in abject poverty,after creating the worlds best selling novel.
For 50 years that book was hailed by critics alone.They were proved right after 50 years.Citizen Kane is adjudged by the critics as worlds greatest movie,but that movie was not the greatest money spinner.Critics will give immortality to a work.Public hardly give it immortality.But most of the times public view corresponds to critcs view.Geroge Orwell was a famous writer but he was accepted by fellow philsophers only after his animal farm and 1984 novels.Till those novels came he was called as a trash producer.
Public view is pooh poohed.They tend to have a very short memory.Many americans still think that titanic is the greatest movie ever made.They wouldnt even have heard about citizen kane.
priya sheldon writes becos his character does it? wat kind of argument s that? this more like a adoring westerner kind of attitude while ridiculing ourselves. if one bharathiraja depicts his characters sexy he s considered porn artist, while a westerner does it its literature just becos some like minded individuals who consider it gud.. have u ever heard of national film awards r saakithya academy awards? r they not awarded after taking a critical look at works? veedu was a greatly acclaimed film but how many s seen it? it was shown only in dd. and i think that flm ll exist only in archives. i dont buy the argument critics make a work immortal. at the end of the day its the public who make works r prople immortal. dickens was best knwn for his other novles rather than his crtically acclaimed masterpieces. if he d not written tale of two cities (hope thats dicekns) and other one, we wudnt be discussing him. mgr was never gud an actor but he s more popular than sivaji, people worship him still. isnt that immortality? critics view take u only so far. if people dont like wats in there, ur work is nothing.
priya wat do u mean by immortality? u r saying citizen kane s gud movie but i ve never heard of it and so does many americans. just becos some critics rated it gud and put it aside doesnt give it immortality. it shd ve somethin in it to catch the eye of the public. harry potter s panned silly by critics but after 5 books it still makes money and fame. if u ask next generation abt harrypotter, they r gonna remember harry potter. not some critically acclaimed work.
In west there are authors who write exclusive porn.There are authors who write mystery novels.There are people who write family novels.People who want mystery buy clive cussler.People who want literature buy charles taylor.The mystery novel authors need not mix porn in their novels to increase sales.In movies too this is the situation.Unlike in tamilnadu or bollywood they need not have a "rain song" to sell their movie.So if some porn description comes in their novel or movie its natural.Its not artificial like in tamil movies.THey will mix porn not for story line,but for sales.Similiarly they will have a fight and some sentiment scenes.Such movies are called as formula movies.
Bharathiraja could not deviate from this formula.He had to show vulgarity in his movies.It looks artificial.So i call him pornster.I couldnt see his alaigal oivathillai with my family in tv.Similiar is the case with so many other movies.whats wrong in calling them soft pornsters?His muthal mariyathai was good,16 vayathinile was good.
Thiruvalluvar too wrote kamathu pal.Kamba ramayanam has many such verses.does anybody object to them?These great poets knew how to portray it in a non-vulgar manner.our soft pornsters have only one objective-make money.double meanings,vulgur songs--is this movie?
Our national awards and saketya academy awards are politicised.Do you know how many people lobbied to give shivaji ganesan "thata saheb balke award?"They gave it to him somewhere around 2000 or 1999 when he had stopped acting.Can anybody humiliate this great actor than this?Our awards like kalalimamani,sahetya academy and national awards are useless and highly politicised.its useless to even talk about them.
public dont make any movie immortal.They dont make any novel immortal.Their opinion is totally invalid.They can give a movie maker money and fame but not immortality.MGR might be remembered since he was a politician and CM.But that wont make him a great actor.That status can only be given by critics.Shivaji won acclaims for his veera padiya kattabomman.So he will be hailed as a great actor as long as critics live.Amir Khan won acclaims for his lagaan.So he too got immortality.Public opinion has nothing to do with it.Actors dont have anything to do with it.Budget has nothing to do with it.Only the art will be studied.It will be torn upon.The director will be abused like anything(in literary words) for useless scenes.In end if its good,its accepted.It will be hailed.It gains immortality.
This is the process.All cine directors and actors know this.So what is there to debate on this?Those cine guys also know that they cannot easily win such acclaim.So they release statements like "naan 6 kodi makkalin theerpai than nambukiren...irutarayil irunthu vimarsikkum jolna pai asamaigalai alla..".Thats words of a loser.whenever you hear that argument you can know that you are hearing the ravings of a discarded actor.
Citizen kane is worlds best movie.Thats why I said public acceptance dont give you immortality.Public opinion is nothing,meaningless.Citizen kane is worlds greatest ever made movie.Yes,it was selected by critics.Public dont know much about it.Its immaterial.
People havent given wallace his due for the same reason as you say about Barathiraja
Because there is too much of sexual content But read Seventh Secret....the storyline is Hitler survived the war and lived to 1965
The Prize: All the intricacies about the Nobel Prize There was so much evidence based hankipankiness elaborated in the book the book is banned in Scandinavia
The Man: A black man becomes the US president in the 60s by default.....what happens next he gets impeached....
awork lives but by its critical value and by the public veiw....If not it ends up in the archives and maybe someday as non detailed lessons..
Moghamul was verymuch appreciated by the critics as a movie....How many know that today...How many of our 470 audience know that the chap playing Devayani's husband Prabhakar was the young lad in love with archana joglekar in Moghamul.....
Citizen Kane shows his face once every other X mas in the national channels but do the....commercial channels play them no...
Gregory Peck played a wonderful act in 'To kill a mocking bird which was critically acclaimed and commercially successful But he is much more popular as Captain mallory and Sherriff Mackenna( an interestig western where the Hero uses his Gun only once in the start of the movie) Which get played over and over again even after 40-50 years why Box office collection....
So its a mixture of Both not exclusively one or the other....One person who has sussed that out is Kamal hassan who alternates a mahanadhi with a MMKR..an anbesivam with panchathandram...A virumandi with Vasool raja...it might appear silly but he has mouths to feed...
Correction Cusslers are just adventures I dont think there are any great mysteries in them But they are fun...I stopped reading his works when Dirk Pitt hanged up his gloves
Brathiraja could not deviate from this formula.He had to show > vulgarity in his movies.It looks artificial.So i call him pornster.I > couldnt see his alaigal oivathillai with my family in tv.Similiar is > the case with so many other movies.whats wrong in calling them soft pornsters?His muthal mariyathai was good,16 vayathinile was good. > Sorry I watched Alaigal oivathillai with my parents thats just two lovers in an embrace..thats part of life...But Nagma dancing in the rain with satyaraj.....in a white saree or mandakini dancing in the rain in a white see thru saree....MMMM different kettle of fish y movie immortal.They dont make any novel
I dont agree that his charectors do it so he writes them...sheldon....there are authors who havent done that and are still famous... Forsyth AlistairMAclean Archer
RajeshKumar To name a few If you wanted you can do it
if i put harry potter in a sealed bag and bury it deep under the earth to make it exist, people ll still read it. king arthur was never a literature. ponnar sankar never existed in print. so r stories abt virumandi aiiyanaar and other gods. they too r arts which r not criticised by anyone, but they live among people for 1000s of yrs. as long as people like it, the work ll live. karl marxs das capitalism was greatly acclaimed work but now its so debunk that his followers goin for market economy. as said earlier critics can give u acceptance, but its the people who decide who s gud and whos bad.
Mere passing of years will not make on old book a literature.For example "Ba Gua" (book of changes) the chinese book is one of the oldest books in the world.who even knows about it?
Public embrace a book for many reasons.Only some epics are widely read by public.But many books are held as literature with very little public knowledge about the book.Gilgamesh is an example.Public must not have heard about that book.But no student of literature fails to read that book.The tribe which wrote that book doesnt even exist anymore(sumerians).How many public have read tholkappiyam even in sangam age?How many have read nannool in sangam age?Not many.Such books remain with poets and pundits.rarely do books like kural and kambaramayanam win both publich support and pundit support.