One of my conversations with a person I shall refer to as SM went like this:
Me: Have you read Kafka? (By the way, Kafka is one of my favourite authors)
SM: Yeah..... The Trial, The Castle, Amerika, Metamorphosis........everything
Me(Wondering whether he's actually read ALL of Kafka's works): I loved 'The Trial' and 'The Castle', but I didn't find 'Amerika' nearly as good.... Not quite as exceptional...(Note: I hadn't condemned it as 'bad', just ordinary)
SM: Wait! How can you criticise anything by Kafka? There are some people whom you can't criticise no matter what, you can't criticise Rabindranath Tagore, you can't criticise Shakespeare, you can't criticise Kafka.....
Me: So I can't criticise Kafka or Tagore? So basically I have to abstain from criticising Kafka, even if I dislike his writing? In other words, I'm not even allowed to have an opinion on his writing....
SM: No one can understand Kafka's works, and even 200 years down the line people won't understand Kafka...... To me if you can't understand something, you can't criticise it....If you criticise it, that's hypocrisy and I cannot tolerate hypocrisy....
Me(At this point, quite annoyed and wondering whether he really has read Kafka): Not all of Kafka's works are that difficult to understand for an average reader who doesn't go digging for meanings in every phrase.... Aside from the fact that his novels are unfinished, I don't think there's any major difficulty in 'understanding' the books..... And there's absolutely no difficulty with 'The Metamorphosis', which is also complete.... Moreover, if we aren't allowed to criticise, what good is critical reviewing ?
SM(Ignoring the first part of my reply): The point of critical reviewing is not to criticise or analyse a book, it is to find our own inner weakness blah blah.........(All this 'profound' blabber was soon cut short by the arrival of another person......)
The most significant point is that according to the speaker, there are some writers, directors etc. whose works can neither be criticised, nor compared; any attempt to do so is morally wrong.
Firstly, no one who wishes to read Kafka should be discouraged by the above conversation...... In my opinion, Kafka is not really difficult to understand, it's just that the incomplete nature of his works make it a bit unsuitable for casual reading...... By the way, if you like 'The Trial' and 'The Castle', I'd suggest reading Albert Camus' 'The Stranger' next.
Since I've gotten that out of my way, I'll get to the main point: Is it morally wrong to pass critical judgement on artists who are considered to be 'great'?
A few days after this conversation, Girish Karnad called Rabindranath Tagore a 'second-rate playwright', drawing flak from multiple quarters. Again, I do not intend on defending his position, but the fact that he is allowed to have his opinion without being ridiculed for it.
I don't believe in this principle at all..... Art is created as much for the enjoyment of audiences as it is for the artist himself/herself. There are some who completely disregard the audience while creating the art, but no one can claim that the audience 'doesn't matter'. If the artist only did it for his/her own personal satisfaction, why would he/she have bothered to release it publicly? This is especially true in the case of literature.
Literature is created with the primary purpose of being read, which inevitably means that it will be judged. Even Kafka, who hadn't published most of his work, had written with the intention of being read. I think that in itself is enough reason to read the works of any author and make a judgement for yourself.
Moreover, who dictates whether or not these writers are too great to be judged? Is it the writers themselves or the readers? The answer is quite obvious..... There have been some readers who did judge these authors for themselves and declared them to be great. To not say that it is morally wrong to criticise these authors actually means that it is morally wrong to criticise the judgement of certain individuals who proclaimed these men/women as great. Why should my own judgement be blindly dictated by that of certain critics? People should be free to judge art for themselves and not just because someone said so..... Importantly, the reason why Shakespeare, Tagore, Kafka etc. are considered great, is because people throughout the years have judged their works to be so..... Artists whose works are not appreciated by generations, are often forgotten by history. The judgement of an audience is critical in determining whether or not an artist is remembered or forgotten...... J.S. Bach was nearly not as appreciated as a composer in his lifetime, as he is in his death; Keats and Kafka never achieved much fame in their lifetimes.... The same was with Edgar Allan Poe, Emily Dickinson and Vincent Van Gogh. The greatest judge is the audience and while their works did not appeal to people in their lifetimes, they appealed to people after their deaths.
And what of the 'untouchability' of great writers, musicians, directors etc.? I do not believe in this either.... If you do not like a book, a piece of music or a film, you are entitled to say 'I do not like it', without having fear of being condemned as a person with bad taste and not worthy of being an 'intellectual', even if the writer is Shakespeare, the composer is Beethoven and the director is Satyajit Ray. It is not a given that the greatness of a writer prevents his/her work from being exempted from criticism..... When we read a book, watch a movie or listen to a piece of music, we judge that piece of work by itself..... The artist will be judged by the entirety of his/her work. Even if you have read 20 books by the same author, and liked all 20, there's no guarantee that the 21st will be to your taste. In fact, when someone has written as extensively as Shakespeare or Tagore, it is almost a given that some of his/her work will be sub-par. Not every of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas is in the same league as 'Appasionata', and in fact, a few are quite average. That doesn't mean that Beethoven becomes any less of a composer...... As pertaining to the discussion that triggered this essay, it is common opinion that 'Amerika' is not nearly as great as 'The Trial', 'The Metamorphosis', 'The Castle' and many of his short stories like 'In the Penal Colony', 'A Hunger Artist' and 'The Judgement'..... In fact, in my defense, I might add that Kafka abandoned writing 'Amerika' before all others. In my opinion, there is a body of work by other authors writing in German which are better than 'Amerika'..... Hermann Hesse's 'Siddhartha' and 'Steppenwolf', Thomas Mann's 'The Magic Mountain', 'Doktor Faustus' and his short stories; and Gunter Grass' 'The Tin Drum'..... As for writers in other languages, I can name James Joyce's 'Ulysses' and 'A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man', F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'A Great Gatsby', George Orwell's '1984' and 'Animal Farm' and more.... The list goes on and on...... Yes, 'Amerika' in my opinion is outshone by all these works, as it is by Kafka's other works..... So, is it a moral sin to judge the book? Does it amount to hypocrisy? I think not.....
Our judgement is dictated by our individual tastes; as far as taste is concerned, I do not think there is any right or wrong; it's quite personal. What we call 'good taste' is that which is predetermined as good by critics and society in general. In my opinion, it should be inculcated through experience of both the good and the bad, than blindly following what is deemed to be good. It is also for ourselves to judge whether or not a particular writer is good or bad. As long as one stops short of making ridiculous statements(which again needs to be defined), he or she should be allowed to voice his/her opinion.
I for one, am not particularly fond of Tagore's prose and I find Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bibhutibhusan Bandyopadhyay and Manik Bandyopadhyay's short stories to be better than his..... I cannot claim to have read all of their works, but from the little I have, I am tempted to make the comparison. So is this bad taste /bad judgement? As a reader, am I not 'qualified' to make that comparison? I think I am.... If I've read the books, I am as qualified as anyone to comment on whether I liked it or not, or whether I find it good or bad.
What I find off-putting is the attitude of literary critics(and pseudo-literary-critics) towards the common reader in the way of we not being 'qualified' to have anything intelligent to say on literature in their presence...... While it's true that we haven't dug up every single word for hidden meaning, allegories etc. I do not see how that makes our opinion any less important than theirs.... Like I said before, it is ultimately the general public which will decide whether an artist is great or not..... The reason Mozart and Beethoven are great is not because some critics said so, but because their music is appreciated by all, even today. And in any case, I do not think writers write for people to dissect their works, they write for people to enjoy their works...
Vladimir Nabokov said that good readers don't read books, and particularly literary masterpieces, "for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations". Similarly, Stephen Joyce(grandson of James Joyce), said that his grandfather's works could be enjoyed by anyone without picking up guides and intricate explanations. He even added that had his grandfather seen people doing that, he would have died laughing.
While I'm still on the topic, I'd also like to discuss 'What is good taste?'..... Like I said before, I am an opponent of militant imposition of taste. However, there are some things that characterise taste... For one, not many will make 'ridiculous' statements like 'Jimmy Page is a better composer than Mozart', or 'Chetan Bhagat is a better writer than Charles Dickens', even though they might like Led Zeppelin a 100 times more than Mozart's Piano Concertos, or 'Five point Someone' a 1000 times more than 'David Copperfield'....... These are some things that we consider 'commonsense' and almost everyone(including myself) would laugh if they were to make such a statement...... On the other hand, one can have a raging debate regarding who writes better prose; Tagore or Sarat Chandra? No one will laugh at you if you say Mozart is better than Beethoven and if you mention that you like P.B. Shelley more than T.S. Eliot, you will have as many supporters as opponents........ That directors like Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray, Ingmar Bergman, Jean Renoir etc. are a cut above most directors active today is undisputed, but does that stop people from enjoying 'trash' more than 'Eight-and-a-Half'? Not really..... In other words, our society has a pre-determined image of what is good and what is bad. People whose tastes lean towards what society calls 'good' are deemed to have good taste. It is seen that with gradual exposure to all forms and all sorts of art, people generally start leaning towards 'good art'..... For example, in my childhood, I watched and even enjoyed certain books and movies which I would balk at if asked to read and watch again. By the age of 17, I can decide for myself what is good and what is bad..... But this realisation cannot and should not be forced on anyone, it is for them to find out for themselves, one can can guide others towards good literature, music and films, but one cannot force them to like it.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that people be allowed to freely criticise artists(in the broadest of senses), and be allowed to develop 'taste' for themselves.
