It resists against relegating art to a consumable item or a commodity. Though the Marxist theory of literature insists on reflecting miseries of masses in poetry and fiction in a style which is comprehensible to masses, it also believes in the idea of permanence as s quintessential quality of art. This is the reason modern aesthetics has no room for popular literature. While defamiliarised use of language and abhorrence for cliché are the hallmarks of modern writers, popular authors incline to familiar, cliché ridden and easily digestible language. While popular literature is not at odds with the fact that its popularity is ephemeral and fleeting. “Life is perishable, but it has the potential to produce imperishable things like art”, is the central thesis of modernism. The modernist writer believes that things, phenomena, human feelings and even existence are ephemeral and transient, and it is the present moment that matters most, but the art - and here lies one of the big paradoxes of literary history - created out of these ephemeral things must have had some lasting and undying elements. When it comes to judging the aesthetic value or the thematic significance of literature it wears an aristocratic and a bit conservative look. So, it can be claimed that modernism is largely democratic it is against all kinds of discrimination. The aesthetic theory of modernism not only respects writer’s choice of theme, technique and style but generously allows them to indulge in any kind of experimentalism ranging from blurring boundaries of genres to reinventing language. But the issue of popular literature is not as simple as it appears at first glance. At least in the context of Urdu, popular literature represents a category of mostly fictional writings that are, though widely and cherishingly read and admired by common folk, disapproved by highbrows. The term ‘popular literature’ is a modern construct with pejorative connotations. (Clockwise from above) Mumtaz Mufti, Faiz, Manto and Bano Qudsia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |