CONTINUING THE GLF DIALOGUE

Exploring embedded critical narratives

By Rajpal Abeynayake

Knowing that newspapers are still continuing the dialogue on Galle literary festival 2010, the following response/recap would not be out of place.
Well, for the life of me, I never thought I would be writing in defence of the GLF. But this is by way of comment with regard to two GLF pieces that appeared in separate Sunday newspapers last week.
It’s the first article, which is a critique of the festival that labels that festival “lacklustre” that calls for a response in defence of the festival organizers in the interests of fairness.
The author opines that the fringe events such as the Ravibandu drum ensemble performance and the other events such as the Chitrasena dance exposition marked the real festival highlights while the literary events --- the book readings and the sessions featuring writers —- were lacklustre.
He then animates his festival review with a didactic judgment that Ian Rankin the Scottish crime writer was the only A grade writer at the festival while others all merited a C or a B.
Now - - my reservations about certain aspects of the festival notwithstanding, this assessment to me conjures an impression of somebody who has a certain fantasy notion about literature, let’s say a superficial one that converts literature at a literary festival into a concourse in which certain participants are judged on the basis of their appreciation among the lowest common denominator.
Won’t do.
Certainly, I’m amused at the thought of Ian Rankin being classed as the only A grade writer at this festival ——— I’d put Michelle de Kretser at A any day, for instance, and Wendy Cope at A (or at least A -) perhaps, and Ian Rankin at B, or perhaps B -.
Why so? It’s for the simple reason that Ian Rankin, extremely popular though he may be, is a writer of crime fiction, a sub genre of pulp. De Kretser wrote a “detective novel” too, which is not about solving the plot however, but which has everything to do with creating depth of character and making a literary exploration of colonial Sri Lanka, using, lest it be forgotten, exquisitely crafted English. Rana Dasgupta writes those kinds of philosophically reflective books too as do many other participants at the festival, which all puts them in a grade above Rankin in my book — so the cavil that there was only one A grade writer in not just inaccurate but shows, to say the least, a lack of appreciation of the nuances of literary appraisal. I suppose it’s in the same pan-destructive mood that the writer says he enjoyed the fringe events such as the drum festival and the symphony orchestra event more than the sessions based on literary work — I was waiting for him to mention the kite festival, but he didn’t....

A literary festival

Given a choice, I would have any day sat listening to De Kretser or Cope preferring them over the Chamber Orchestra performing at the Dutch Reformed Church, as much as I appreciate them, and that’s with apologies to my good friend Lakshman Joseph de Saram. For one thing, it’s because I’m at a literary festival, and it’s rarely that being myself a writer at bottom, that I get a chance to listen to and discuss with some accomplished poets and writers, some so good that their peers are asking them in dust jackets of books, why they have not won the Booker Prize. Now, catch anybody asking that about Ian Rankin? (!)
Certain of the said writer’s criticisms about the festival no doubt are valid but that’s the whole point -- it’s not wise to say the entire festival was blighted due to its rather striking ‘Colonial-Master strikes back’ aspect.
Ru Freeman’s is the next take on the festival that caught my attention, and hers appeared in yet another Sunday newspaper last week.
Kudos to Freeman for writing a very engrossing novel “The Disobedient Girl”, which I’m reading these days. She is a rare Sri Lankan talent, most would willingly concede. But Freeman’s comments on the festival needs some contestation, particularly the comments she makes about the session at which I spoke about “What I dislike about the Galle Literary festival”, the Resident Critic session as it was dubbed. Curiously, Freeman who went for the session on post war writing which featured among other panellists her brother Malinda, turns up late for my parallel session , presumably only because the session that followed mine at the Maritime Museum was the one in which she spoke about her debut novel.
More curiously, Freeman who perhaps spent no more than ten minutes perhaps at my session writes about it at length but says not a word about the session on post war writing which was incidentally referred to in more than one festival review as a “flop.”
This is not a matter that needs a close and careful reviewer’s incision - - but there is to say the least, a wee bit of a lack of integrity to be at less than half my session - - thereby missing its entire focus — and then going on at length to deconstruct it when the session she really goes for, the main course as it were, is ignored. Well I didn’t expect her to call that session a “flop” as others did, but this does smack of a slight case of nepotism, but what the heck, nepotism being our current national credo, only tokenly condemned by Ru’s brother in his prolific recent newspaper commentaries... What more can I say about this blood-is-thicker aspect, when she ends up recommending the brother as a future eminent official translator at the festival(!) Anyway, there is some lack of reviewer’s integrity to appear at a session when most of it is done and over with, and then to say that the session’s speaker (myself) dismissed the entire recent canon of Sri Lankan writing in English. For the information of all concerned, I did no such thing; what I did say was that the generality of the Sri Lankan work featured at the festival was mediocre —- and that did not include Ru Freeman’s work for instance, which I had not read at that point.
Somebody might turn around and say what is the integrity in that, yet it’s humanly impossible to read all the recently published work which was not freely available in the country in the first place, but yet I had read a great deal of the other Sri Lankan work —- which is why I definitely stated at least impliedly that I am not condemning all Sri Lankan writing showcased at the festival but most of it.
Also Freeman is upon her own admission a Sri Lankan American writer, which does give her a leg up in the world of publishing for instance, I suppose, which she seems to discreetly admit in her jottings, which does not take away from the obviously laudable quality of her work that I’m currently privileged to read.
I think we can get rid of garbage clinically without smearing it everywhere, and do so with our integrity and our yen for reasonable standards intact. We have to get rid of garbage with some pro-active determination however --- cleanliness is next to godliness, didn’t they say?

Testiness

Freeman also mentions about some sort of testiness seen in both panellists at the end of my session —- this is the same old tired argument which was raised about the fringe session on media I participated last time around in 2009. Argue with an audience member, raise hell a little, and you are “testy’’ and “grumpy” and what not —— well this much can be said, nobody called my session a flop and seems as if Ru Freeman included among the festival reviewers, wanted to devote at least a third of their jottings on the festival to the session in which I figured.
I can assure everyone that’s a test of both the entertainment value and the significant overall value of the session —- in fact, a great many of those who have commented on it have said that it was an ‘uproarious session’ etc., some saying in fact it was the best session at the festival. (Juliet Coombe, privately of course.)
Why I say this is out of no personal compulsion, but to underline the fact that Freeman may have missed something about her own jottings which devotes perhaps more than a third to what transpired at my session —- having been there for ten minutes or thereabouts. It was obviously then a session that to say the least provoked thought and a whole cache of varied analysis all round —- so why seek in the end to derogate it with the testy comment, when all she can do is talk about what transpired there in the first place, and this too having been present at its fag end? After all, Freeman talks about the potential value of translations from Sinhala at future events, not really saying that this too was a key point raised at my session also leading to some measure of critical discussion and debate.
The “Resident Critic” proceedings also needs a clarification at this point — as far as I understood, the session was about one participant — myself —- with a moderator, it was not about two panellists. Notice the title of the session, “Rajpal tells us about what he dislikes about the GLF.” This is why Sunila Galappati said repeatedly to me in private before the session that she must train herself to let me do the talking and not say anything substantial herself.
But when the criticism of GLF or at least some aspects of it became too germane for the “moderator’’ to ignore, the moderator butted in and became a “panellist”, offering her own rating of the GLF on a scale of one to ten for instance though the ratings question was directed at me. I do not fault her for it — she had to defend her work as festival director, yet it may be a measure of her testiness under fire, but I had no reason to be ‘testy’ in the least, and rather enjoyed the session which is probably of course rather irrelevant to all concerned, even though I say that myself.
My point overall is critique the critiquing session by all means, but do so with some basic integrity intact such as being there - - and then, when proceeding to comment on it, do not reveal your predispositions and prejudices by dwelling on all that was raised at the session for a better part of your jottings but then also adding “oh ho, but they were testy.”
I can say some things in the same coin though I wouldn’t, for instance — “I daresay the post war writing session was a flop though I wasn’t there, and the participants certainly seemed jaded.”
See? If there is nothing much to talk about the session on post war writing, why distort the parallel session which threw up so much food for thought? Maybe just maybe it’s because I hadn’t read Ru Freeman at that time and therefore didn’t have anything good to say about her book?
Well I have nothing personal of a score-settling variety about these matters, so I say now —- I’ m reading Ru Freeman these days and she writes a very good book. Wish I had time to read it before I went for my session at GLF — the author would certainly have been much less testy if I had read it and said what I thought about it, notwithstanding the fact that she is somewhat like Barack Obama —- half “black” and underprivileged therefore, but half “white’’ and American nevertheless, at least by association, which gives her at least half a leg up as it does Barack —— a kind of privileging that Sri Lankan Sri Lankan writers as opposed to American Sri Lankan writers, alas, do not enjoy.