Amado V. Hernandez’s novel “Mga Ibong Mandaragit” (Birds of Prey) is required reading for third year students in the school that my daughters go to. When my younger daughter first brought home a library copy of the book, the author’s name struck me as familiar. I did a little research and found out that the author was the defendant in the landmark case People versus Hernandez, a required reading for first year law students in Constitutional Law and Criminal Law. Hernandez was charged with “Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery” during the height of the crackdown against communists in the 1960s. No such thing, the Supreme Court said. Common crimes like murder, arson and robbery are naturally absorbed in the rebellion.
But enough about why the name Amado Hernandez rang a bell. This is about “Mga Ibong Mandaragit”, the concept of creative writing and the effectiveness of words in relaying a message.
To put it simply, my daughter was having a hard time comprehending Hernandez’s novel on the Japanese occupation. I tried to help but discovered that I was having as much difficulty as she did. We enlisted the help of her father and, trust me, the expletives that followed cannot be reproduced here. And we all speak and write Filipino fluently. In fact, it is our first language.
I have heard it often said that literature and conversational language are not the same. Creative writing, that which defines a literary work, is meant to elevate the use of language to heights and depths that the straight-to-the-point everyday language cannot do. It is steeped in symbolism and figures of speech. It is often enigmatic, sometimes cryptic and, occasionally flowery. It isn’t uncommon to find oneself needing to read a piece of literature more than once to find its meaning or meanings.
Still, to my mind, the complexity of an idea or a plot can be relayed in language that is understandable to readers. Otherwise, one might as well be writing for oneself alone. Take Hemingway, for instance, especially the much celebrated “The Old Man and the Sea.” No unusual words, no paragraph-long sentences. Just simple language evoking a symbolism that will be discussed and pondered upon for ages to come.
But “Mga Ibong Mandaragit” is of another genre. Had it been written in English, the reader would easily get the impression that the writer had a Thesaurus by his side and he intentionally sought unfamiliar synonyms for the more familiar words in order to sound profound. A case of substance muddled by incomprehensible form.
Is it a matter of style? Is it a matter of training and background? Hernandez worked as a journalist for a significant part of his life and one would think that “language as a tool for communication” would be the benchmark of his writing. I can understand the popularity of “Mga Ibong Mandaragit” when it first came out. It was the 1960s and the anti-Japanese sentiment was still very much pronounced. The rising tide of socialist ideas turned revolutionaries and guerillas into larger-than-life figures. And Hernandez was not only an ex-guerilla, he was a labor leader and a fierce newspaper writer.
It is 2008. None of us must ever forget the atrocities that the Filipinos suffered under the Japanese (and Spanish and American) rule but if we are to benefit from first-hand narratives, even in dramatized form like Hernandez’ novel, we need to be able to understand them. While I acknowledge the shortfalls of our Filipino language education, it does not help if writers use a writing style that makes it even more difficult for us to appreciate their stories.
What is so objectionable about the use of simple language in literature? Is literature naturally elitist and meant to be appreciated only by a few? Is it what makes it special? Is that what makes it good?
Is literature a form of snobbery or a concept invented to make a few chosen men sound important? My English literature teacher in my second year in college sparked a class debate once when, in an attempt to define literature, she cited the poem of a highly-celebrated Filipino writer. The title, if I remember correctly, is “The Lonely One” and the poem consists of dots and a single comma. Is that the kind of crap budding writers should look up to? Is that an example they should all hope to emulate if they want to be considered as serious and talented artists?
I have a friend, his name is Jay David, he is the blogger more popularly known as Batjay and, a few weeks ago, he launched his second book, “Mga Kwento ng Batang Lamig.” Jay is a humorist who writes about his life experiences. His writing style is raw and what many would consider crass. He uses strong, sometimes foul, language and his references to the male genitalia is are legend in the Filipino blogging community.
Not literature, if based on the high-brow standards of people whom society regards as authorities on the subject. But Jay’s writing is required reading in some Filipino classes in the University of the Philippines. Not as an example of bad writing but as an effective writing form, as an honest chronicle of the life of a Filipino overseas worker and as a no-nonsense look at culture, society and ourselves. In the book’s introduction, writer Jun Cruz Reyes says, “May nagsusulat at may nagbabasa. Din na si Darna at Batman ang bida. Tayo na ang bida.”
Is it just the difference between classic literature and popular literature? Just what is the difference between the two if not old age? Language evolves. Culture evolves. If we keep on defining literature based on the number of obsolete words used, literature will always be something for the enjoyment of men who like to shut themselves up in a room dissecting letters. It is us who should define literature based on what we consider good, effective and beautiful. A handful of so-called authorities do not have the right to do so. They are not all of us.
The following was published on May 22, 2008 in Manila Standard Today.
Tyranny of the insecure
Over e-mails, I have been told about the nasty things being said and written relative to an earlier column entitled “The Birds of Prey and Batjay.” Some dismiss me as “taga-Manila Standard kasi ‘yan” and accuse me of encouraging laziness among our youth.
Thing is, I refuse to dignify any of it. The issue was ended and my point proven when all these people decided that only they, and no one else, had the right to set standards about what was good read and what was not. So instead of getting angry at them, instead of engaging them in a word war, I will thank them.
Thank you for admitting that as far as you “intellectuals” are concerned, the world of literary standards revolves around you, what you think and what you say. Thank you for showing the world that for all your pretensions at intellectualism, you are not even capable of separating the issues from the personalities. That saves me the trouble of having to defend my position because you have so generously done that for me.
I’ll end my expression of gratitude here but my editor will get upset because she will be left with a lot of unfilled space. So, let me amplify my gratitude by explaining to the rest of the readers why I bear no grudge.
We all like to think that we are important. And we are, actually, in varying degrees and relative to the multiple roles that we play in society. A parent considers himself to be the highest authority when it comes to raising his children. When his own parents start criticizing his parenting style, he gets angry. Never mind if they are making a valid point. He is quite incapable of discerning between how the criticism is relayed and what the substance of the criticism itself is. He feels his anger is justified because his authority was undermined.
The head chef has specific instructions about how a soufflé should be made, one of his underlings tries a new technique and makes a better soufflé, and the head chef wants to get him fired for not following orders.
The Catholic Church believes that it is the only true moral authority. Then come a time when men get wiser and decide that faith and truth are not the same. The Church feels threatened and doubles its efforts at putting all its money and might to exert pressure on governments to ensure that state policies are always in accordance with the Church’s teachings.
It’s all about being told that they might be wrong or, at best, that their truth is not as universal as they want the world to believe. It’s all about being told that what has been held as unshakably true for most of their lives may be nothing but fallacy, and it elicits a reaction of anger and defiance.
It’s also about ego. It’s all about the feeling that one is undermined and one’s importance is threatened. And that is how some people felt when I wrote the birds of prey column. These people are not believers in the free marketplace of ideas. If they were, they would have discussed the issues sans name calling and insults. When they resort to the latter, they simply manifest that Catholic Church-like mentality–never question our truth because only we have the right to define what truth is.
For them, social order means that there is a sector assigned to set the rules over a particular territory. Morality pertains to the church, law enforcement pertains to the government, science is for the scientists, intellectual and literary standards are for the academics and those who like to think that they echo the standards of the academics. When someone crosses over, especially when that someone challenges the supposed order of things, the balance is upset. Authorities are undermined and egos get bruised rather badly.
It is especially hard on the “old school,” including young people who live and breathe the values of the old school. It’s like the newspaper publisher who does not see any value in investing on a digital version of the newspaper simply because he cannot even begin to comprehend the intricacies of the Internet and the endless possibilities that it offers. For many people, there is only one way of doing things and that way is the one that they know, the one that they are comfortable in and the one where their feeling of importance is secure. Everything else is wrong.
So, when these people feel that their authority and importance are threatened, they squirm and squeal. They try to assert their importance by insisting that they, and they alone, are correct–not by validating their arguments but by undermining the person that questions them. It’s all very human and it is echoed in every part of society. Roald Dahl illustrated it perfectly in the character of the school headmistress Agatha Trunchbull.
So, like I said earlier, I bear no grudge. I have known far too many Miss Trunchbulls in my life and I understand.
I remember that last term, my professor in Japanese literature brought up the same argument, this time naman with regards to the development of Japanese literature. May debate pa rin kasi between the difference of what they call "junbungaku" (pure or high literature) and "taishubungaku" (popular literature). The high literature has the obligation (or something) to make sure that literature brings forth change in the society, or something within those lines. Hence, those writers that are popular not only in Japan but also in North America are being frowned upon. They have this concept that if you're a high literature writer, you're not really supposed to be a bestseller. :
I guess, Tita Connie, some people are having a hard time distinguishing what is "bad" literature and what is not. Or dapat nga po bang may division between the two? Because one work could be seen as a "trash" by one reader, but it could be considered as something "thought-provoking" by another. Hmm.
I agree with Angela. Our concept of literature is always evolving. What was considered as poplit years ago is now considered high lit. Or classic. Take for example Shakespeare. His works were appreciated by a wide range of audiences then. I do not know if he was considered high brow then. I don't think so. But now, his works are lumped in the highlit variety. Or take Stoker's Dracula. He was one of the writers who popularized Gothic lit. Very popular then. Now, his works are considered high brow. Maybe in a few more years, Barbara Cartland will be considered high brow reading.
Pag jologs ka ba, lahat ng binabasa mo, considered as lowbrow o bad writing?
Perhaps, the question that the character of Julia Roberts asked her students in Mona Lisa's Smile, that "what is art?who gets to say what is art and what it not?" The same goes with literature I guess.
In this sense, I idolize Edith Tiempo, Kerima Polotan-Tuvera and N.V.M. Gonzalez, much as I am a fan of T.S. Elliott, simply because I get what they are trying to say in their works.
Jologs man o elitista, kung ang karanasan ng manunulat ay naipapamahagi at nararamdaman ng nagbabasa, ito ay karapat-dapat basahin.
Because when a work is easily understood, it is akin to sipping wine, in that it quenches your thirst and feeds your soul.
The greatest writers of literature are always an aberration, freaks of natures, winning the genes lottery, with experiences to boot that matches the prevailing times.
On their core, the best literature is about the strength and folly of human nature with the writer using a distinctive unique style. But almost no literature lasted for 100 years without some significant substance. Style alone might make a writer successful but only for a brief time. Jose Rizal has revolutionary substance, Shakespeare probed the depths of human nature, Mark Twain used his wit to show us the way.
I supposed the same applies to other arts. Stevie Wonder is one of those musical genius who are both critically acclaimed and commercially successful, partly because his lyrics are haunting. His 1970s music are classic. When he tried to go to the sacharine techno style road of the 1980s, he was still successful commercially but only for that decade. His 1970s music still sound fresh today, his 1980s records sounds old today.
ang required reading naman namin nung high school ay yung "the world is an apple" ni alberto florentino. hindi ko ito masyadong na enjoy dahil medyo dark ang storya at nung time na yon, masyadong malalim ang mga salitang english para sa isang pinoy na storya. yun ang naalala kong dahilan – pero siguro ang tutong dahilan kaya hindi ko ito nagustuhan ay dahil tamad lang talaga akong magbasa. hehehe.
sa kabilang banda naman, yung "may katwiran ang katwiran" ni rolando tinio naman ang parang "required play" namin. yon ang na enjoy ko ng husto dahil tagalog ang ginamit ni tinio na dialog at angkop na angkop yung storya dahil martial law pa nung time na pinag-aralan namin ito. nakakatawa kahit malalim ang tema, engaging dahil common na tagalog na madaling intindihin ang ginamit ni tinio sa play.
idol ko si tinio kaya nga gusto kong palitan ang pangalan ko ng tristan tinio (t. tinio for short).
sa pagsusulat ko ay ginagaya ko rin siya. pinipilit kong gamitin ang mga salitang binibigkas ko kapag kasama ko ang mga kaibigan ko sa tambayan. kaya nga puno ito ng mura at maraming kabastusan. produkto lang naman ako ng kinalakihan ko. i make no apologies. ayan napa english tuloy ako.
pero ganon pa man (medyo nag defensive mode) kahit na puno ng kulay ang mga salita namin, minsan ay may kasama naman itong katatawanan at maraming kapupulutang aral.
How about this medium (internet) we are using today, could it be an example of literature evolving before our very eyes?
I love the Tagalog and English being used seamlessly to express ones feelings or opinions like exhibited in the previous postings.
It would be nice if lines from "Mga Ibong Mandarangit" or "Mga Kwento ng Batang Lamig" be posted. I'd like to get a sense or feel from these literary works.
Ha ha.. si batjay talaga kahit sa ibang blog hindi mapigilan ang kalokohan!
I listen to classical music when I'm deep in thought. But classical music is different from classical literature. Listening to Brahms is refreshing, reading Shakespeare is torture.
For me, a Mark Twain or an Irma Boombeck is classic enough.
Birds of Prey, yes I can still remember a bit of this lit. this was one of the hard hitting lit that we critiqued back in College in our Journ Ethics class. that was a decades plus ago pa, but if my memory serves me right, it was intentionally written in somewhat a style of depth such that the authorities would not comprehend its content at all. the original piece was written in Spanish, but apparently the libelous content of the lit was discovered soon enough. and the rest became history.
"….the complexity of an idea or a plot can be relayed in language that is understandable to readers. Otherwise, one might as well be writing for oneself alone…" —-I definitely agree. and Blogs, as a form communicating, is no exception. readability is very much important.
One talks about great classical writers and their "walang kamatayang" literary works as if they are the standard to be emulated. One drops their names to sound more sophisticated. But the question is "do we really read them?" I for one don't. To be frank, reading the first few pages of a Dickens or Tolstoy novel makes me drowsy. But I'll gobble up an Asimov trilogy or a Frank Herbert series in one setting. Walang alisan sa upuan. Tama si lemon, a mark of a great writer is when their work is read and understood by the many.
That's why these classics are made into movies. At least sa pelikula may "action" to compensate for the boring monologue.
Angela, in whatever form, regardless of how words are used and sentences structured, it is the message that determines whether a piece of writing can change society, I think. Slogans and propaganda can hardly be called high literature, much less text messages in the abominable text lingo. But text messages drove out Erap, didn't they?
Honey, sometimes, I think that the intrinsic value of writing is much like antiques. The older it gets, the higher the pedestal people place it. But put everything side by side, old and current, it doesn't follow that the old ones are better than the new ones.
Lemon, ah that is a good metaphor about the wine. It is how deeply a piece of writing affects the reader, how much it touches him, that makes it effective or not. You can use all the words in the thesaurus in kilometric sentences and sound wonderfully (pa)intellectual but if the reader didn't get your meaning, you can't be a good writer.
Jay, you are a wonderful writer. Your insight into human nature is honest because you never seek to be politically correct. Enough said.
Tom, the internet is a medium. It is the medium used by so many wonderful writers.
BlogusVox, re "reading Shakespeare is torture" LOL Perhaps if we were living in the 16th century, we'd understand and appreciate him better. Truth is, appreciation of "old" language is something for linguists. But literature…??
Feng, re blogs. Exactly. When blogs are written iN tHiS fOrMAt, or n dis styl, pass na ako. hahaha
if i am not mistaken, there has been a time when the lilterati debated on what is more important, message or the medium? I think it has always been the message that is more important. We are beginning to see this now. The more people being able to read and understand the message, the better it is for literature. What good does it serve kung ang ganda ganda nga ng flow of words mo, pero wala naman nakakaintindi?
In fairness naman, we should also consider the space and time of the writer's milieu. Classic yung kay Shakespeare. He was writing in the form that he knew. Satin Old English yun, sa kanya, contemporary yun. I have a feeling na ganuon din ang kay A.V. Hernandez. Just like yung Aba Guinoong Barya ata ni Emilio Jacinto ata o Andres Bonifacio. Old style Tagalog yun. We have to put extra effort to understand but once we get to, we learn to appreciate it.
Si Jose Garcia Villa ata yung kilala sa paglagay ng tuldok sa bawat salita, right?
Re Jose Garcia Villa, yes it is him. Dots and commas. If there are words, I'd understand the excessive use of punctuation marks as an attempt to intensify the significance of the words. Pero kung dots and commas lang, aba eh, lokohan na yun.
Conversational language and literature might look to same to the eyes of ordinary people but the critics often decipher it exactly the opposite.Many talented writers want to reach a wider audience that includes the common people to appreciate their works as a form of entertainment but at the same time tickle the curiosity of the critics to read what is hidden between the line.Many uses a words,symbols or a phrase to deliver their messages on all level of thinking, appealing to the masses brainstorming the elite.
di ba si ee cummings, merong tula (???) –o sige, work- -na comma lang ang laman at wala nang iba?
MaLaY u mz. connie, n a fEw yerz tym, napaka-significant na ang ganitong pagsulat. at matalinhaga pa. hehe
Ed, what qualifies a person as a critic? You know, a lot of people call themselves artists, including actors and actresses, but watch movies and TV and you start wondering what the heck an artist really is.
Honey, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Connie, sorry to say the elite critics because many claim they are,I would say" keen observer", is a proper phrase to use so its not too divisive and discriminating. Actually one doesnt need to be a holder of a doctorate degree to become a critics, anyone of us regardless of age and educational background could be critics in our own way to any of the art forms.We see things differently the way others do,maybe due to the influence of peers,age,experiences or the environment that we live in.So much so that any critical analysis or point of view of any faultfinder is deemed to be neither right or wrong as the saying goes beauty lies only in the eyes of the beholder.Yoko ono once paint an X on the ceiling and John Lennon using a magnifying glass to check it out thought she was a great artist,but many say what a heck of an artist she is….
"Yoko ono once paint an X on the ceiling and John Lennon using a magnifying glass to check it out thought she was a great artist"
ed v., siempre, misis nya yun. Kahit ako, kahit maalat ang luto nang misis ko sasabihin kong "ANG SARAP"!
BlogusVox,ha ha ha actually that is their first meeting.
Ahh, nagpapa-impress kay Yoko. O, kitams, e di nakuha nya.
HA HA HA ….could be, but Yoko I think is quite homely( no offend to yoko fans), John Lennon maybe saw something from her that others did not ,just what they say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
I once saw a poster of her together with John. That was in the ‘70s. Hippie-hippie pa sila noon. She looks like the girl with the long hair, crawling out of the well, in one of those Japanese horror flicks.
OT na tayo ah. Baka magalit na ang may-ari nang blog.
Pass muna ko sa discussion. Me sick.
Lemon:
Totally agree with you. When I read an article or book or anything, and it's not touching me, I would not continue. There are so many writers who uses challenging and deep words but actually makes no sense.
I like what Connie said: "You can use all the words in the thesaurus in kilometric sentences and sound wonderfully (pa)intellectual but if the reader didn't get your meaning, you can't be a good writer."
The language of the heart is simple and true, and good writings touches your hearts and stirs your imagination. I believe a writer reveals a lot about themselves in their writings. You can tell if the person is emotional or cognitive, honest or phony. I'm not a writer but I read a lot and I can sometimes spot them.
Oh Connie, take care and get well. We need you back in the loop.
BlogusVox: aray naman, tinamaan ang mga luto ko. lol
Mark Twain has been a hard read for me. I just can't seem to get over, what to me, is his red neck style of writing.
Here are some writings I think are good and stirs the imagination:
The character Elias's parting words in Noli Me Tangere, "Mamamatay akong di man nakita ang maningning na pagbubukang-liwayway sa aking Inang-Bayan! Kayong makakikita, batiin ninyo siya — at huwag kalilimutan ang mga nalugmok sa dilim ng gabi!"
Ma. Soledad Lacson-Locsin who at 85 years of age translated the Noli from Spanish to English stated in her introduction of the novel, "If the Filipino cannot truly grasp his own past he may not value his present nor ascertain his future."
Alam mo Tom, kahit puti si Samuel Clemens, malaki ang utang na loob nating mga pinoy sa kanya. His one of the proponents that the Philippines should not be annexed. To leave us alone to form our own government after the Spanish-American War. Sad to say his voice fall into deaf ears.
It was during his campaign that the term "White Mans Burden" was coined. That expression was meant for us pinoys and not for the black slaves many thought it was.
Vox, I don't feel any gratitude towards Samuel Clemens. For all you know, the guy was just doing "lip service" like some people I know when it comes to these matters.
I hate to say it Ms Sassy Lawyer, when one complains about a work of art, others are tempted to say one can't appreciate art.
When one can't appreciate literature, then one has to work at becoming literate!
This requires reading and rereading and not complaining. Literacy is a sure sign of intellectual maturity.
When I first read Dostoyevsky I found him incomprehensible. After all I was a college freshie.
When the ZTE controversy erupted,I re-read Dostoyevsky ( I wanted to have a glimpse of Lozada's motives) and I understood it better this time.
Never did I find it profitable to complain.
Blackshama, RE "When one can't appreciate literature, then one has to work at becoming literate!
This requires reading and rereading and not complaining. Literacy is a sure sign of intellectual maturity."
That is exactly the kind of stereotyping that I am against. Stop thinking inside the box that culture has created for you. That's like saying there is only one way to appreciate literature and that way is what the high-brows dictate it should be. Swallow that mentality hook, line and sinker and that is the worst kind of moronic thinking.
I was born complaining because I was born discerning. I define my literature. The ability to do that is far more intelligent than being a yes-man to cultural standards.
Can't this be a case of the obsoleteness of our education system? In high school, I felt like the ones written in Filipino were a little too profound (and so my Filipino grades were the lowest). But in college, enjoyed my Filipino classes as we were asked to read more recent works. Isa na doon ang Overdrive ng Eraserheads (although this is more of a poem rather than prose.)
Hi Yoru, re "Can't this be a case of the obsoleteness of our education system?"
Yes, I think so. Madalas masyado de-kahon mag-isip ang educators, from the DepEd to the textbook writers to the teachers.
amen to de-kahon!
that says it all. ha ha.
I was born complaining because I was born discerning. I define my literature. The ability to do that is far more intelligent than being a yes-man to cultural standards.
——-
I just find it sad that you blame your ignorance and your inability to comprehend a certain text on somebody else. For me, that is not only rude but self-righteous as well.
If you were, as you say, born discerning, then isn't dissing this literary work a form of irresponsibility on your part? Everybody can have an opinion, and I respect that. But an opinion that was said out of a whim, without considering the context of the argument that you are pushing for – this is just ridiculous.
I was always taught to blame myself for my own ignorance. It's what makes us human. I guess to know of a person who lambasts other people for her own shortcomings is disappointing.
I hope your daughter will be taught better at school. And I pray that when she encounters a challenge, when she is faced by her own limitations — I hope she doesn't blame it on anyone else.
Jazzy, ah jazzy, clearly you did not understand the entry. And yet you dare to post that comment. I pity you.
Re "I was always taught to blame myself for my own ignorance."
You should. Yours looks self-imposed. Perfect illustration: the entry is there, in plain language, and you did not understand it.
You're not even wise nor mature enough to separate the issue from the personalities in this case seeing how you see it fit to attack me as a person rather than discuss the issue. Pathetic.
Well I guess we're even then. Clearly, you do not comprehend why such texts by Amado V. Hernandez or Jose Garcia Villa were written in that way in the first place.
As for my ignorance, if you believe I can't understand what you wrote, rest assured I won't go around and post a blog entry blaming you. I won't have a silly tirade calling your article "crap" just because I failed to see your point.
Which is why the more pitiful one here is not me, but you.
Gee, read your comment — you call me self-righteous? LOL
We're even? LOL some more. Such vanity.
You're a new blogger. I know you're linkbaiting and provoking thinking that's the way to get noticed. It isn't.
I forgive you.
hi connie,
back when i still had time to read several blogs a day, your blogs–especially the ones about food–were on my reading list.
well, i'd been too busy to read up on blogs, even too busy to update my own, so i was rather surprised that your blog about Amado V. Hernandez has been the subject of much criticism and yes, even cruel comments.
now that i've read your comments about AVH, i think i can now get a more balanced view on the discussion.
several writers, most of them academics, some of them are even my friends, have lamented that your op-ed piece at the Manila Standard advocates stupidity and laziness–simply because you complained that Mga Ibong Mandaragit was too complex and difficult to read.
i'm a strong believer in the notion that quite often, we should only get the literature that we like. that is, if one's taste and mental capacity only allows one to read only FHM… well, who am I to force that person to read Proust?
Is that notion elitist? Does that mean the Proust reader is superior to the FHM collector?
The truth is, I don't really care. I do not lament the possibility that young people are more stupid today than they were a generation ago. I do not lament the fact that many people, even lawyers, will not be able to appreciate Finnegan's Wake.
I believe that as individuals and as a society, we get the literature that we deserve–and "classical" and "popular" are artificial, arbitrary terms (the same way that many laws are arbitrary, as well)–so depending on our choices, we could stay at FHM level or move to Proust level.
But I do have standards. While I am a fan of AVH and have read the novel as well as his poems, I do not proselytize on his behalf.
I like AVH because was one of our first Modernists, believe it or not. His novels and his poetry brought Philippine literature to the 20th century. Without AVH, we'd still have 18th and 19th century romances written in Tagalog verse. I think he's the opposite of obsolete: I suspect we haven't mined everything from his work, simply because he was a genius–an alcoholic genius but a genius, still.
I like him, but you don't have to like him, too.
In looking at your blog entry and op-ed piece, I take the point of view of a parent: I understand why you would complain over such a difficult book being assigned to your child.
I myself would not assign such a book to my child without appropriate "preparation." My impression is that the school simply assigned the child such a complex book without preparing the child for it. Even the Noli and El Fili can be difficult books to read in high school–something I know from experience.
In reading the comments made by writer-academicians about your work, I was reminded of a phrase used by novelist John Irving, making reference to the "pompous insanity" of academics.
I was also reminded of the time, in college, when I shared a building with law students and lawyers, and reminded of how I was exposed to the "arrogant stupidity" of lawyers–an opinion I shared with medical students.
However, the intervening years and the aging process have changed my views. I have friends who are lawyers, several of whom share my taste in literature. We still have wonderful discussions about the authors and poets we admire in common.
So I won't make any comments about your literary preferences. You have a right to them.
I will only take issue to the notion that liking AVH constitutes "elitism". It's true that AVH is part of a Philippine literary canon that is determined by academics. But the judgment by that "elitist" circle is constantly tested by readers in every generation.
And for readers who devote enough time, effort and energy, they are usually rewarded after reading the books in our Philippine literary canon. Usually, but not all the time.
There are simply books that we like, and books that we don't like, and ultimately, it is time and circumstance that will determine which literary works will last. How many excellent literary works were destroyed in the Library of Alexandria?
Ultimately, those of us who love books must first agree that books are important. Differences in taste are ultimately petty. What's more important is realizing that even a book we hate may be just as worthy to enter the canon (vis a vis Harold Bloom vs Stephen King), and a book that we love, no matter how much we love it, may end up discarded and forgotten.
Will our nation, simply because young people no longer read literary "classics" suddenly implode under the weight of irrationality and illiteracy? In other words, could we become as stupid and illiterate as many Americans? Well, even if that happens, what's more important is that it happened as a result of free choice–individually or collectively.
There's room for all types of books, as long as we retain our respect for literature, and for the act of reading, as a hallmark of our humanity. What's important is we agree to disagree on our literary preferences and let each other read whatever we like.
So by all means, continue supporting the authors you like. Leave the "complex, hard-to-understand" linguistic stylists, and verbal avant-garde-ists to those who enjoy them.
Hi Ramil, some of the biggest snobs and SOBs I know are academics. The ones who can extol the virtues of Aristotle's arguments but who find Descartes gibberish. I understand their reaction. Very human. They don't want to be considered obsolete and irrelevant as well. And what I wrote seems to belittle their kind.
And just because I don't read the likes of Amado Hernandez does not mean I didn't catch the irony, sarcasm and insult in your comment. Avant-garde, eh? LOL
hahahaha.
touche.
i am so glad you caught the "irony, sarcasm and insult" as you describe them.
of course, of course, they were there. i was hoping you'd "get" them.
my greatest fear would be that you wouldn't and then…horrors… I would have to EXPLAIN them to YOU.
if i had to do that, i would have regretted the day i came upon your sassy lawyer blog.
of course, i'm still hoping you sensed the respect i have for you as a writer. no wonder your blog has all these adds–it must be getting a lot of hits.
believe me, when i put the "irony, sarcasm and insult" there i wanted to achieve a kind of verbal "Jericho Missile", you know, ala Tony Stark.
you know, insult everyone, even myself–yeah, yeah, i'm actually thinking of teaching so i'm doing my breathing exercises this early for my move to the academe–if they accept me, that is.
like i said, i have friends in those circles and they all tell my how ugly some academics can get–just about as ugly as some journalists who are equally full of themselves.
i'm really into the idea of free choice right now. after the California Supreme Court's reversal of the same-sex marriage ban, after reading the anti-obscenity bill supposedly gaining ground at our houses of congress–your blog entry resonated with me, i guess because i couldn't stand the thought that a group of people, any group, would take it upon themselves to tell us what we can and cannot read, whom we can marry, or what we can watch.
so the academics do their job. the lawyers, legislators and journalists do theirs. and bloggers have fun.
good day
Re "they all tell my how ugly some academics can get–just about as ugly as some journalists who are equally full of themselves"
So you're not speaking from personal knowledge. I speak from personal knowledge when I say that some commenters are too full of themselves.
As an advanced notice, Thursday's column (May 22), is dedicated to your friends. Perhaps, to you as well.
I haven't read Amado Hernandez' novel, but I encountered something like it in high school — Umaga sa Dapit Hapon by Simplicio Bisa. It was definitely difficult to read as a high school student, but I didn't think that he made wrong use of the language. I just thought that it was too much for a high school student to handle. If it'd been required reading for me in college, or perhaps now (although I don't know why anyone would require me to read out of school), then I might learn to appreciate it, simply for the challenge that it poses in getting me to understand its point.
Re Jose Garcia Villa, the poem you're talking about is "The Bashful One". And he has another one that's also much criticized, "The Emperor's New Clothes", which has neither a single letter nor punctuation mark to it. The text is completely blank. It's just a title of a poem, without a poem. I'm not a fan of Jose Garcia Villa, and I don't think his other poems are good. But something I learned from my professor (who I don't think imposed her views on us because she always said that it was okay for us to disagree with her opinions) is that you shouldn't criticize the artist when you don't understand his/her work. Poems like Jose Garcia Villa's that don't use words become popular simply because he's the only poet who's thought of making a poem without using words. In that sense, he's more like you, not following the "norm" and the "academics" who define a poem as something that uses words. He thought of something, and he did it. Maybe it's something that people don't like, but for its mere originality, it can be considered as art.
hi connie,
while wading through the blog "fall-out" from this post of yours, I'd like to reiterate and focus on one aspect which ralph digal gulle already pointed out here: "I myself would not assign such a book to my child without appropriate "preparation." My impression is that the school simply assigned the child such a complex book without preparing the child for it. Even the Noli and El Fili can be difficult books to read in high school–something I know from experience."
First of all, I would like to say that as a reader, I appreciate publishers' efforts to make their books more "reader-friendly", by adding as a sort of appendix, guide questions, discussions, author interviews etc. My appreciation for Albom's Five people you meet in heaven and Brown's Da Vinci Code was greatly enhanced by the guides available online. I also appreciate Oprah's Bookclub's online guides for its featured books.
I remember perusing the Retizos' book synopses in high school before plunging into Shakespeare's tragedies and comedies. And it helped me understand the bard better.
ralph's comment made me wonder how come no one in the academe/DepEd/Ched thought of coming up with local versions of cliffs notes or barron's guides for pinoy classics like Noli, Fili, etc. You mentioned in another post that there are NBS comics versions of Noli and Fili (also Florante at Laura, Ibong Adarna, etc), but none for Ibong Mandaragit. Attention, NBS and Anvil!
(Digression: Do you know that there are now manga versions of some Shakespeare's works? http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Section/Shake…
Belatedly, an online guide to Ibong Mandaragit (with talasalitaan!) was launched (as a result of the brouhaha): http://www.ibongmandaragit.com/. Thanks to the person(s) behind this! This i welcome because it is more productive and helpful to readers struggling with the book.
And thank you for caring about your daughter's struggle as a reader.
"Fall out?"
IF every disagreement constitutes a fallout, what would be the point of blogging? Let's just have cyber parties instead.
There are academics who aren't snobs. I mean, why would Jun Cruz Reyes's work be part of the Filipino literary canon if they are? Why would the works of Eros Atalia, Mes De Guzman, Allan Derain be both critically-acclaimed and popular among casual readers? Why would the works of Villa and even Hernandez inspire a lot of criticism (and not all of them good)?
Is there a suggestion somewhere that they all are?
"What is so objectionable about the use of simple language in literature? Is literature naturally elitist and meant to be appreciated only by a few? Is it what makes it special? Is that what makes it good?"
Fascinating blog. We had a few souls tell us that our making Shakespeare more accessible (by modernising the language for one of our versions), was, in fact, dumbing down. We were hoping that we'd be encouraging a new generation to read! So your quote resounds deep within……
Is literature naturally elitist and meant to be appreciated only by a few?
Is literature a form of snobbery or a concept invented to make a few chosen men sound important?
Oo.
I also agree to most of the comments posted here. I guess, concepts and forms of literature gradually evolve and change through time. what we considered good and excellent before may be considered questionable now and even criticized.
We all know that one has his/her own viewpoint on something like for example, a literary work. So a piece of literature may seem to be good to others but then oppositely may be taboo or bad to some. and we can't do anything about that.
Let's just say that, if you yourself find something interesting to read and thinks it is worthwhile reading, then go ahead read. there's nothing wrong about that but please do take into consideration what others think about that work your reading at but eventually, it's up to you to belive what is what you think is right.