Literature

Literature is one of the Fine Arts like music, dance, painting, sculpture, as it meant to give aesthetic pleasure rather than serve any utilitarian purpose. It consists of great books which, whatever their subject, are notable for literary form or expression. Imam Jafar Sadiq, sixth Imam and great writer, philosopher of his time and a polymath, defines literature as "the garment which one puts on what he says or writes so that it may appear more attractive." I have never come across such concise and complete definition of literature anywhere else. It is the aesthetic worth alone, or aesthetic worth combined with general intellectual excellence, which entitles a book to be considered as literature. In the realms of poetry, drama and fiction, the greatest works are selected on the basis of aesthetic excellence or the beauty of expression. Books dealing with other subjects, as history, biography, natural science, religion, politics, etc are considered as literature for their reputation of intellectual eminence combined with aesthetic worth in the form of style, composition and general force of presentation. This is a general definition of literature. When we say that a book is not literature, we generally mean that it has no aesthetic worth; while when we call a book on history, politics, religion etc as literature, we mean that it has got aesthetic value. This definition excludes literature from scientific types of writing in which the writer uses language for a logical, purely intellectual exposition of matters of fact and generalization from facts. It also excludes utilitarian type of writing in which writer uses language for furthering his own or other people's interests in the business of earning a living. Most of the columns that appear in newspapers (especially in Pakistani newspapers) fall into this type.

There are two types of literature – applied and pure literature. The two terms can be properly explained by studying Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's and Allama Shibli Nomani's literary works. I'm not attempting to compare the two. It's just an example to make a point. It could be Hali's or Azad's or Premchand's literary works. Or even could be Deputy Nazeer Ahmed, Abdul Halim Sharar or Sajjad Haidar Yaldarm. In this illustration I do not make reference to any specific literary work of the great writers rather it is applied generally to most of their literary work with the focus on style of writing to further classify into the two distinctively different types of literature. In case of Sir Syed, it includes 'tabayan-al-kalam', 'safarnama-e-London', 'tehzeeb-al-ikhlaaq' and 'asbab baghawat-e-hind'and for Shibli Nomani 'seerat-o-swanikh' (Alfarooq, AlMamoon etc.), 'falsafa-o-kalam' (ilm-ul-kalam, alghazali etc.), 'adbiyat' (mawazna Anees-o-Dabeer), 'safarnama', 'tarakeeh', and 'maqalaat'. In other words, the form of expression and style employed and exhibited by Sir Syed and Shibli in majority of their writings is being referenced for this discussion.

Sir Syed has certainly some literary merit in the form of expressive power, as Sir Syed has communicated certain information to the reader in an appropriate style. But in this case the expression is not so important as the information Sir Syed expressed himself, for the purpose of putting his readers in possession of a certain body of information, and thus persuading them of the cogency of a certain line of argument. Even if the expression were clumsy, the information nevertheless might be true and the argument reasonable. The literary quality of Sir Syed's work has served a certain specific purpose, and there are two elements in his writings – the merit of Sir Syed's purpose and the merit of expressive power, which are easily distinguished in for example in Premchand's and Yaldaram's work. It gives us no information which may be true or false, and no argument which may or may not be cogent. In this case the expression satisfies us simply by existing as expression, and not as a means to an end. Here art does not take us beyond the domain of art. This is what is called pure literature. In applied literature we have to ignore the purpose of the writer in order to appreciate its literary value as in the case of Sir Syed's work. But in pure literature we need not exclude the author's purpose, because here the writer had no purpose except that the expression should exist for the mere sake of existing itself. Ordinarily when we speak of literature, we refer to pure literature.

Expression thus is the fundamental thing in literature. But what does the author express? It is his experience of life. Now as experience is the substance of literature, everything that can be experienced by man in life for the sake of experience becomes the subject matter of literature. Thus the scope of literature is illimitable, and wherever there is life, there is the possibility of pure experience, and so of literature. This experience can be intellectual as well as emotional, the main criterion is that it must be satisfying in itself, and not cater for something beyond and outside it. In applied literature the experience of the author has to be excluded or transformed into something pleasant, in order to enjoy it; in pure literature experience is expressed as enjoyable merely by virtue of being expressed.

But the mere expression of experience is not enough; it has to be 'communicate' to the reader. Literature communicates experience. In other words, the experience which lived in the author's mind must live again in the reader's mind. For example in Shibli's writings 'islah' has the similar significance as it does in Sir Syed's work which Sir Syed passes to the reader in a straight and plain form whereas Shibli gives to the reader his own experience, and transplant it from his own mind to the reader's with the great economy of the words. In other words he communicates the experience, whole and entire, to the reader.

This style of writing is not easy to attain, as the writer's experience is his own—a part and parcel of his life. It is the very process of his own life, and by no possibility can it be shared by another person. But a writer can do so by the power of imagination. His experience may be actual or a sort of day-dreaming, but imagination can transform it into something, as a whole, to the reader. By means of his imagination the writer can continue something of his experience and communicate it to the reader as if he has recently plucked it out of the flux of life. One of the distinguishing features of Shibli is his simple and interesting way of putting philosophical ideas that an average reader can understand without too much of difficulty. In his writings in order to effectively communicate his experience with the readers he arouses the same imagination in his readers, and controls it in a such a manner that the reader also imitates that experience. This he achieves by means of words which should act as symbols of his experience, so that it can be properly represented to the reader. His 'safarnama' though full with unnecessary details, has this obvious quality and great imagination with the ability to show reader all that he sees himself.

Among others Munshi Premchand excelled in this. Saadat Hassan Minto is a more 'recent' example. In his 'afsanas' he translates his experience in such symbolic equivalence of language, that the symbol may be translated back again by the reader's imagination into a similar experience. It is here that the skill of the artist lies; and his highest artistic power is called into play, because the medium of language at his disposal is limited, while there is no limit to the possibility of imaginative experience.

Minto's language which is very simple, not only expresses his experience, but also represents the same experience to the reader. His all 'afsanas' are very artistically written but some of them such as 'nafseyati mutaleya', 'ketab ka khulasa', 'blouse', 'hatak', 'mantar', 'majeed ka mazi', 'khushya' etc. are at the zenith of his imagination which is then fully transformed into reader's imagination.

The power of imagination is the most important feature of a great she'r. Imagination gives a she'r, a sophistication and fineness. Altaf Hussain Hali opines that power of imagination is the only distinguishing factor between a poet and a non-poet. He quotes following she'r of Ghalib as one of the examples of power of imagination:

Pila day aouk se saqi ju hum se nafrat hay

payala gar nahe daita na day, sharab tu day

No doubt, it is a simple thought but the imagination employed has made this she'r very classy and extremely fine one.

The sense of language is the 'vehicle' for employing and conveying imaginative power from writer to the reader, in any form of literature. The writer has to rely on his reader's ability to respond to what his language can only suggest, and for this he must have the sense of language. In fact, it is this sense of language which distinguishes a literary artist from his fellows.