Academic Year
2013-14:
Post 4: Meaning
of Literature to Meaninglessness in Literature
During last two weeks (29 July to 10 August 2013
), I passed through a Tiresian sort of experience - 'throbbing between two lives' - from
Aristotle's concept of literature, his 'canonization' of literature, his giving
meaning to literature, his optimism in deathly tales of tragedies, his Oedipus-
the defiant against the Destiny; to Samuel Beckett's 'Nothing to be done', his
meaninglessness in literature, his pessimism in nothingness of human condition,
his Sisyphean happiness in human predicament of life where - "They give birth astride the grave, the light
gleams an instant, then it's night once more".
 |
| Samuel Beckett |
 |
| Aristotle |
In Semester 1, we ended
our discussion on Aristotle's 'Poetics'. I 'pitied' students' predicament and
concluded rather hurriedly, without giving more time for discussion and
engaging them in brainstorming age old Aristotelian concepts. I will show them
'fear' in the handful of dust when it comes to discuss 'possible and necessary'
questions. The presentations of important points discussed will be embedded
soon on this post so that late admissions and absent (physical as well as
mental) students can get themselves abreast.
In Semester 3, we are
still debating meanings in meaninglessness. Yes, it is, indeed, a difficult
task to switch over from Aristotle to Samuel Beckett. They both stand wide
apart in the basic concept of literature. Aristotle attempts, and quite
successfully, to defend and define first ever definition of Tragedy in
particular, and literature in general. Beckett’s plays presented life as
meaningless, and one that could simply end in casual slaughter.
Nevertheless, their difference
and polarization of ideas seems to be locking horns at each other. But in fact,
they deal with one and the same thing. Aristotle heavily relied on Sophocles’s ‘Oedipus
the Rex’ to bring home his arguments. And William Hutchings helps to connect
the dots. Let me quote at length from his book ‘Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for
Godot: A Reference Guide’ (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005): “Since the
beginning of Western drama in ancient Greece in the 5th century B.C.,
three plays have generated, captivated more diverse interpretations, raised
more profound questions, captivated more audiences’ imaginations, and provoked
more arguments than any others – or even, quite possibly, more than all others
combined.” (I like the ‘shape of this sentence’. I borrow this from what Samuel
Beckett once wrote: “I am interested in the shape of ideas even if I do not
believe in them. There is a wonderful sentence in Augustine. . . “Do not
despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume; one of the thieves was
damned.” That sentence has a wonderful shape. It is the shape that matters.”). Let us continue with Hitchings: “The fist,
Sophocles’s ‘Oedipus Rex’ (also known as ‘Oedipus Tyrannus’ or ‘Oedipus the
King’, was written in the fifth century B.C. in ancient Athens; the second, William
Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’, was first performed in London circa 1602; the third is
Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’, which had its premiere in a very small
theatre in Paris in 1953. Each of these plays has a seemingly endless ability
to fascinate – and to perplex – its audiences, in part because its plot raises
questions for which there can be no easy answers or final resolutions: Did
Oedipus have free will in taking the actions that he did, even when he unknowingly
killed his father? Or was his fate entirely determined or predestined by the
Gods? Is Prince Hamlet mad, or is he not? Is the Ghost that he sees real, or is
it NOT? If real, is it telling the truth, or is it not? And, most strangely of
all, why are these two trams on this desolate landscape waiting beside a tree
for Mr. Godot whom they might not recognize and who does not – and may not – arrive?
Why isn’t much ‘happening’ here? What’s it meant to mean?”.
He further writes: “One
reason for the three plays’ continuing appeal is that each challenges its
audiences and its readers to think about profound questions about the naute of
the world in which we live; about the meaning of life itself; and , especially,
aobut how we know what we think we know about the universe, about other people,
and even about ourselves. Each in its own way embodies issues that have vexed
philosophers and theologians for years. ‘Oedipus Rex’ asks us to consider
whether gods or humans are fundamentally in control of the world; whether we
all have destinies that are inexorable, unavoidable, and preordained; and
whether there are circumstances in which we can – or even should – try to defy
the will of the gods and the edicts that they issue. ‘Hamlet’, similarly,
questions the ‘kind’ of universe we live in – whether justice can be found in
this world or the next (if at all), and whether we can ever know with certainty
the truth of our situations and then act with moral responsibility when and if
we think we do. ‘Waiting for Godot’, in many ways, simply extends those
uncertainties: why are we here? Are we alone in an uncaring universe, or not?
What are we to do while we are here? How can we know? And, ultimately, what
does it matter?
However profound the
questions that they raise and however disturbing the answers that they provoke,
these plays are fundamentally ‘not’ philosophical treatises or sermons. The
source of their perennial popular appeal lies, emphatically, elsewhere: despite
quite dissimilar styles, they share uniquely theatrical eloquences, a poetry
that is embodied in performance, conveyed not only through language but through
the predicament which Oedipus, Hamlet and two Tramps suffers”.(Italic words
are mine.)
(More to follow . . .)
Questions from students:
However, there were many questions raised and settled in the class, some dusted off, the two
with which I came home are:
1) If patriarchy 'conditions' languages, why is it called ‘mother
language’ and
2) If ‘Waiting for Godot’ deals with meaninglessness, why do we
say that the meaning of the play in meaninglessness and nothingness and .
. so and so on?
unknown to the dangers and it started playing with whiskers of the lion. Soon the lion woke up and roared angrily. The rat
started trembling. The lion was ready to svour the rat. The rat begged the lion to pardon and promised to help him in the
hours of need. At that time, the arogant lion smugged at the rat and left it alive. After some days the lion was trapped
by hunter in the net. The lion began to roar for help. soon the rat came with fellow friends and saved the life of lion.
And then they were friends forever.
The moral of the story is:
- One never knows how one can be helpful to others.
There he saw a lion.Unknown to the dangers of lion,he climbed over the body of the lion and started playing with his whiskers.
suddenly,the lion woke up and roared in anger.The rat was trembling in fear.Watching a trembling rat,the lion pitied him.The rat was ashamed
for his deed and begged to be pardoned.He also promissed the lion that he will help him in his critacal times.
The lion,in a mood of disgust smugged at rat ang left him alive.Then one day a group of hunters trapped the lion in a net.
A poor lion roared for help.As soon as the rat came to know about the trapping of lion,he came with a few friends and cut the
net.In this way he saved the lion.After that incident,they remained friends forever.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY:
1.A friend in need is a friend indeed.
2.Never underestimate anyone in your life because you never know how one can be helpful to others.
3.friendship is like water,no shape,no place,no
taste.But it is still essential for living.
But,how can a small creature help 'A KING'?.The king smugged the rat and gave him a chance to live.
The flow of time never remains the same.After few days The king was trapped by hunters in the net.It was so called pity of him.He craved and roared for help.The rat,being a being of blood and flesh,without thinking anything came with fellow friends and anyhow managed to save the King by cutting the stings of tne net.Only afterwards the lion understood the value of friendship and became the friends forever.