Happenings to Ancient writers

I want to comment on your affirmation that formerly most writers were employees under kings. You probably had in mind France in seventeenth century, which had a very peculiar situation. I personally study eighteenth-century English literature, and in this period a great many important writers were against the crown. You will find a plethora of different political biases in perusing those writers.

It is nonetheless true that such writers can only express their own view of the world, but we don't need to limit ourselves to a sole writer. You can grasp something of the big picture by reading many writers. And it is actually done: in the eighteenth century social history was not a common form of writing, and modern historians, when they need a closer view of human interactions at that time, have recourse to novels and other literary forms. They read Addison, and Fielding, and Godwin. Literature is indeed one of the few portraits that remain from those times. You are right in saying that the results of such research may be unfair; but this doesn't mean that literature must be completely laid aside as a source of study. Unless you prefer to leave history aside, too, as a worthless activity.

In short, I think you have reasonable doubts, but they shouldn't induce you to take a radical view of the subject. In all fields of scholarship, it is easy and sometimes profitable to criticize methods, but it is very difficult to suggest alternatives.

I hope I have not been disagreeable.

Beauty Blue Island Info

One day I saw in an advertisement written: buy your tickets to the 'Beauty Blue Birds Island'. Many people had been running to get their tickets. They run like wild people trying to get what they had in their minds a long time before: peace, fun and so without having any kind of worry themselves.

More than two thousand peoples were thinking equal each other. They thought the same thing united. Than I took my five sons, my wife, my two little dogs and more three cats and went to join with them!

We traveled on board of an old and a wonder ship to the Beauty Blue Birds Island once that we were beginning to take a little school vacancy. But to my surprise it happened the unexpected: the people madly began to shout and to run everywhere!

There were too many dogs, cats and children that were confused among them. Suddenly, the great ship began sinking slowly and all the people abruptly began screaming at the same time.

Meanwhile some of ours were saved on ten lifeguard boats, until so do I achieved to rescue myself and I got saved my family but I lost all my animals.

After this fatal and tragic adventure I have decided that I will never be guided for other people or any kind of advertisement no more. And I reached a conclusion if I want to rest and to have any peace, it will be better that I just search for it in my own home. Maybe I must look for in my kitchen or in my own bathroom.

I shall not mind with anybody that wants to go where he wants go. All what I want it is just they let me live in peace now.

English Novels and Writers

What I would like to point out is that the English novel as written in this epoch inherits a Spanish and French practice of narrative insertion that has little to do with the main plot. Thus, writers such as Cervantes, Sorel and Scarron would put short stories amid a longer tale, and their English admirers (such as Fielding and Smollett) would do the same. The insertions in "Joseph Andrews", "Tom Jones" and "Jonathan Wild" are not necessarily joined into the narrative web. The same is true of Smollett, above all in "Peregrine Pickle", but also in his four other novels.

I'm writing this not to say that Fielding and Smollett were not novelists, but to say that the novel in eighteenth century didn't have such a formal cohesion: it was rather a genre of relative freedom in a time when neoclassical rules had yet some hold on literature. Any consensual definition of the novel is a product of later times, a light thrown retrospectively upon an already existing corpus, and it must be as flexible as the corpus itself. There is no sense in expecting that novels were so-and-so when the writers who first brought it into being had no such concerns.

That's a reason why essentialist definitions of the "novel" are being left aside in favour of a more elastic view. Among recent studies (I mean after Ian Watt's), the two most remarkable are J. Paul Hunter's and Michael McKeon's, and they have in common this wider approach to what may or not be considered a novel. In most recent studies the place of Defoe is taken for granted, as well as that of Richardson. (Fielding, ironically, is seen as more backward than them in this front of inovation.What I would like to point out is that the English novel as written in this epoch inherits a Spanish and French practice of narrative insertion that has little to do with the main plot. Thus, writers such as Cervantes, Sorel and Scarron would put short stories amid a longer tale, and their English admirers (such as Fielding and Smollett) would do the same. The insertions in "Joseph Andrews", "Tom Jones" and "Jonathan Wild" are not necessarily joined into the narrative web. The same is true of Smollett, above all in "Peregrine Pickle", but also in his four other novels.

I'm writing this not to say that Fielding and Smollett were not novelists, but to say that the novel in eighteenth century didn't have such a formal cohesion: it was rather a genre of relative freedom in a time when neoclassical rules had yet some hold on literature. Any consensual definition of the novel is a product of later times, a light thrown retrospectively upon an already existing corpus, and it must be as flexible as the corpus itself. There is no sense in expecting that novels were so-and-so when the writers who first brought it into being had no such concerns.

That's a reason why essentialist definitions of the "novel" are being left aside in favour of a more elastic view. Among recent studies (I mean after Ian Watt's), the two most remarkable are J. Paul Hunter's and Michael McKeon's, and they have in common this wider approach to what may or not be considered a novel. In most recent studies the place of Defoe is taken for granted, as well as that of Richardson. (Fielding, ironically, is seen as more backward than them in this front of inovation.

Ancient History Information

Are you implying hinduism is much recent to kerala?

In my information, kerala before 500 AD was a sort of dravidian place where people had no organised religion, but they worshipped their ancestors and a warrior goddess. Women drank and quarrelled. In short we can say a "Thora" (coastal) culture akin to vizhinjam, chaavakkad, mattancheri meenchantha existed them.

Into this first comes vedic aryan influences. Then arrives buddhism and jainism. Then comes judaism and later christianity and islam.

The gods and demo gods like ganapati, durga etc are comparatively recent imports. Doesnt mean wht the dravidian believed in wasnt hinduism. (though not in modern keralite form).

We can say similarly abt roman catholicism. Compare the roman church of 900 AD with that of 2001 AD. You will not believe they were the one and same organisation.