Digging by Seamus Heaney

The author is trying to come to terms with his identity as a writer, when all his ancestors had toiled the land. 

Ideas on liveness

In general, the idea of remediation conveys that new(newer) technologies remediate  the older ones, as film and TV remediate the theatre. But on analysing all these three medias, we find relevant traces of reverse-mediation too. Today even the position of a spectator present at the site of a live event has moved away from that of a participant to a spectator. This is due to him enjoying the live event though ‘removed from reality’ medium as interface. For example a person sitting in the audience for the prime ministers speech at the Redfort, watches it on the screen in front of him and hears his amplified voice. He may also be reading a rolling subtitle of the transcript of the speech itself, seeing the speaker through multiple camera angles and also occasionally watching his fellow audience. The extend of this conditions can be to the extreme of seeing himself on the screen, while in a live event. Thus the experience of a live performance has very well come close to that of a TV experience.

Mediatised experiences as talked about in the example are now an essential ingredient in live performances. This is partially due to experimenting interactions between mediums and also due to the change in the sensibility of the audience regarding their idea of liveness. 

In some cases live events are influenced and altered by the medium of TV. Formerly a speech by a popular spiritual leader would pull a crowd of thousands. Those events had huge stages with huge colourful cut outs and props to cater the farthest person with a visual impact of liveness. Even the speaker used to walk around the stage to achieve this effect. Today such a speech is basically staged for the camera where changes have occurred in the position of the speaker being stationary and confined to a space suitable for the camera to capture him. The audience is delivered on the monitors in front of them with their own private pieces of liveness. 

The incorporation of mediatisation into live setting can be seen in the changes in the classrooms from conventional chalk and talk setup to modern smart classes. The liveness of a class is incorporated with a mediatised representation, like a video footage or picture projected on a projector. This change is due to audiences’ likeness to such collaborations. Mediatisation for them enhances their live experiences. This idea operates through the directors of filmy stage shows where they try to re-create near film experience on stage by using projected backgrounds, props, lights, sound etc. Thus we can say that mediatised embedding in the modern real life experience is what we come across in most ‘live’ events.

The magic of live performances still holds its charm in such an environment. This is mainly because mediatisation makes the audience think about achieving the next level experience, the live one. This urge can be seen in the day to day life when a person is being appreciated for being present in a program ‘live’, when all the others might have watched it in TV as live. It may be the result of the nostalgia for liveness which operates in the society.

Songs are also been analysed for their inclination to liveness. Generally singers do studio recordings and live performances. But the latter adds to their reputation, credibility etc. The idea of something live as original, directly from author, authentic etc are attached to this nostalgia of liveness.

Re-reading a Mahabharata story

Karnad re-explores his Mahabharata experience to write this drama ‘Fire and Rain’. Vana Parva chapter 135-138 deals with the theme use in this drama. The story in the mythology talks about life of Yavakri, which is all about misapplication of knowledge which he received from the higher power. Yavakri the son of sage Bhardwaj, acquired the knowledge of the Vedas from Indira after undergoing penance for ten years. He misuses this divine knowledge to take revenge on Raibhya, an intimate friend of his father. Both Bhadwaj and Raibhya are learned and are endowed with spiritual powers.

Yavakri, Bhardwaj’s son, nurses a grievance against all for he feels that his father does not receive the respect and recognition which he deserves. Bhardwaj cautions his son Yavakri against misuse of knowledge. His fears prove well founded. To him his knowledge has become an instrument to take revenge. Yavakri corners Raibhya’s daughter- in-law, Visakha  and molests her. Raibhya takes revenge on Yavakri by creating the Brahma Rakshasa a spirit with resemblances to Vishaka to kill Yavakri. The spirit kills Yavakri making Bharadwaj angry and curses Rabhiya that he will be killed by his owb son. Bhardwaj kills himself in remorse.

Raibhyas eldest son, Paraavasu, mistakes the rdeerskin his father is wearing and shoots an arrow at him. Thus Paravasu becomes the murderer of his father but uses his knowledge and power to blame the crime on Aravasu. Accussed of Brahminicide and patricide Aravasu begins his penance and worship of the Sun God to attain knowledge and enlightenment.  At the peak of his penance the sun god appears and grands him a boon.. Aravasu asks the Sun God to give life back to Yavakri, Bharadwaj and Raibhya. When all of them comeback to life the god’’s instruct Yavakri to repriment his folly and use his knowledge wisely.

The most notable aberration on this classical tale is the inclusion of a love story. Aravasu’s intimacy with a tribal girl called Nithilai is tactfully incorporated to criticize the Brahminical order and its practices. The tribal social order shown in the play is liberal and open but sceptic of the Brahminical culture or the culture of the powerful class in the society. The story revolving around the Brahmin community which indulge in penance and prayer and is often tinted with jealousy, sexuality and revenge, while the tribal order is simple and straight forward. It stands antithetical to the dominant culture in its form, texture and modus operandi. The presence of such sub-cultures have similarity to the present day co-existence of adivasi, rustic or traditional cultures with the mainstream cultures. The mainstream culture never draws from the ‘old’ values propagated by these cultures, and still continue to live in its rigidity.

Nittilai’s question to Aravasu “But what I want to know s is why are the Brahmins so secresive about everything” is such a reference to the Brahmincal culture which also was the reason for social issue like untouchablity in India.  The structured social stratum looses all its charm when contrasted against the life of the hunters which is that of instinct and emotion. 

Knowledge is another symbol which is used to contrast both these cultures. Brahminical order is portrayed as people with a Faustian crave for knowledge, even when warned of their incapability to handle this knowledge (as Indira warns) they tend to acquire it for worse. Anyone outside this knowledge crave is also a misfit in the society, just like Aravasu. They operate their knowledge to kill and revenge not to create and survive. This makes them egocentric individuals and not an organic community like that of the Hunters.

Interestingly the two female characters portrayed in the novel Vishakha a Brahmin and Nittilai a tribal are both victims to the respective systems they belong to. Vishaka has a compromised individuality and had to suffer due to her husband’s urge to acquire knowledge. She is a women ill treated in the higher social class. Nittilai a bold, courageous and virtuous girl who attempts to break the system is finally forced into marriage. In both the cases women are the sufferers and this is truly an Indian social issue too.

The inclusion of this sub-plot have lifted the work to a that of social-critique of the Indian society, in the grips of caste system.