To understand and study literature

By Sori Siregar

JAKARTA (JP): One day in March 1873, Tolstoy picked up a book left out by his child and read aloud from it to his wife. The guests arrived at a house in the village. It was the beginning of a book written by Pushkin.

"That is the way to start," Tolstoy thought. "Pushkin brings the readers directly into what's happening. Other writers would describe the guests and the room, but Pushkin immediately entered into the event." In the evening of that day in his workroom, Tolstoy wrote the first pages of his great novel Anna Karenina. Pushkin's influence was reflected in the opening of the novel: All was not in order in the Oblonsky household. It brings the reader directly into a certain atmosphere. Tolstoy was 44.

This episode of Tolstoy's life is interesting. A few years earlier, he had become famous for his no-less admirable novel War and Peace. But he continued to pay attention to, and at the same time learn from, his fellow authors. Such a direct way of learning may be more effective for authors because a literary work speaks directly to its readers without a mediator. Is a mediator necessary for understanding a literary work?

This can be answered yes and no. Most people may reply yes, arguing that a literary work is written not only for authors but also for the general public, usually referred to as lay readers. These readers need a mediator to understand a literary work better, at least to step up their appreciation of it. This applies especially to literary works which are hard to understand. Here belongs the role of a critic, who analyzes literary works based on various theories.

What about authors? Do they still need critics, even though they have no difficulty in understanding literary works? It is no secret that there are authors in our country who feel they do not need critics. Is this mere arrogance or is there really nothing to speak about? For me it is not arrogance. Authors do not learn much from criticism, although critics may give them useful input. Basically, authors learn more from the creative works themselves.

However, it does not mean that critics are not needed. They are needed because through criticism, authors can see their own weaknesses through other people's observations. To what extent they are sensitive towards criticism is their problem. The word sensitive can be interpreted in two ways. First, the author gets the input expected and will further try to write better works. Second, the author is offended and feels himself cornered by the critics because his weaknesses are openly discussed. Such authors are numerous.

Many authors are very sensitive to criticism in the second interpretation. But there are also quite a few who really do not care about criticism and think it unnecessary.

Aldous Huxley never read criticisms of his works. For him, the critics' opinions were not attractive because they only discussed things of the past and things that had been done. Huxley thought more of what was to come.

William Faulkner was even more indifferent toward criticism. He said: "An artist has no time to listen to what the critics say. Someone who wants to become an author reads criticism, but someone who wants to write has no time to read criticism. Their criticisms are not directed toward the artist. The position of the artist is above that of the critic, because the artist writes something that moves the heart of the critic. The critic himself writes something that moves the heart of whoever, except that of the artist."

An interviewer told Faulkner that an acquaintance of his still did not understand one of his works after reading it two or three times. "What kind of approach do you recommend to him?" the interviewer asked. Faulkner replied quietly, "To read four times." Considering the difficulty of understanding a Faulkner work, the reply gave the impression of a callous rejoinder. But if we reflect on it, we will see that what Faulkner wanted was some effort. When one does not succeed the first, second and third time, try further.

The problem is which reader wants to try several times just to enjoy and understand a literary work? For me, it is here that a critic, even an observer and a reviewer, plays a role. However short a review or a criticism, it helps readers to get a better understanding. What is meant here, of course, is the literary works which are hard to understand.

Fortunately, there is only a small number of literary works, prose as well as poetry, the meaning of which is hard to understand. It is for these difficult works that efforts are required to understand their meaning. Ironically, critics often write with academic pedantry, which is not clear for readers.

For literature researchers or students, this kind of writing may be needed, but it is not the case for lay readers. They are not attracted to a long bibliography used by literary critics to write criticisms. The language is difficult and complex, in such a way as to make things concrete, abstract. It becomes less and less helpful for readers to read literary works. It can discourage them to do so.

Criticism with scientific pretensions is found in literary and cultural magazines. They have not reached newspapers and nonliterary magazines, which contribute largely to the spread of literary works (poetry, short stories, novels written as a series), compared to the literary and cultural magazines themselves.

Criticisms with unnecessarily complex sentences have spread to newspapers, although there is no possibility to display a long bibliography due to limited space. We do not know at whom the criticism is directed. A serious study of literature does not apparently need such criticism.

We realize that a study of literature and the efforts to understand and to enjoy literary works are two different things. Apparently, those who need the help of literary critics are lay readers interested in literature but not authors.

Authors can study literature directly from the literature used by critics. To write better works, authors can learn from existing literary works with proven quality. Norman Mailer learned much from E.M. Forster. Ernest Hemingway quoted many authors whom he considered his teachers: Flaubert, Stendhal, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, John Donne, Chekov, Mark Twain, Shakespeare and Kipling are among them.

Apparently Indonesian authors are no different. Those who are not convinced can study the subject.