I have a problem with short stories and the inevitable moral that has to be derived from them.
Sometimes, the moral is right, but the story is questionable, at least for the mind of a child. Take the story of the "Thirsty Crow". We agree that the crow was clever and as an Indian bird, took recourse to "jugaad"- that "desi" trait to make things "work" with a crafty and street smart mind. But what you don't want is for your curious two-year old to take the story too seriously and try the experiment out with the glass of milk... and in the process, swallow both the milk and the pebble! It is a serious possibility with absolutely horrendous consequences, something which the story in all its simplicity just doesn't bother about.
Sometimes, the story is wrong and the moral is also wrong. We go to that story of the woodpecker which pulled out the bone stuck to the throat of the lion. That's exactly why the first story has a problem! Evidently, the lion appears to have towed the crow's line and put pieces of bone along with its water in its water-bowl and yes... paid a very dear price.
Anyway, coming back to this story, the lion, on a different day was ungrateful and wouldn't share its food with the woodpecker. It is known to have remarked to the woodpecker- "I could have swallowed you when you tried to remove the bone from my throat. But I didn't. Be thankful for that and don't disturb me!"
There are some factual anomalies here. How could the lion have swallowed the woodpecker when the bone was already stuck to its throat? Wouldn't the thought- what if the woodpecker also gets stuck along with the bone...crossed the lion's mind!? Or does the story mean... that after pulling out the bone, the woodpecker would have gone in...for a second inspection, to see if the throat was now perfectly fine and on this second attempt, the lion would have had the possibility to consume the woodpecker? The story is obviously flawed with some gaping holes in its plot line.
The woodpecker flew away. At a later point in time, when the lion was asleep, it pecked off one of the eyes of the lion. The lion howled in pain and questioned the woodpecker. The woodpecker is said to have retorted-"I could have blinded you in both eyes. But I didn't. Be thankful for that and don't disturb me!" The moral of the story is of course "Tit for tat".
A popular story all right.. which finds a mention in most picture books that we read out to children. It is left to the reader to imagine what impact it could have on the fertile, tender mind of a child- leading to a society which justifies revenge and each person bays for the other's blood.
Thankfully, children are a lot more intelligent than we make them out to be. They take the story only at face value, memorize it, parrot it verbatim in class (along with the moral)... when their story-telling turn comes and are off in a flash to some other sensible activity.
The third possibility in the analysis of short stories is....where the story is right, but we have got the moral completely wrong. The fox entered a vineyard and tried to get the grapes which were a little too high. After jumping a few times, he is said to have slunk away with the remark "These are sour grapes". We laugh at the fox.
The question is... what else is the fox expected to do? Obviously, the grapes were too high and couldn't be reached. Do we want the fox to keep jumping till he possibly perishes out of sheer exhaustion!?
Or do we resent only the remark of the fox- "these are sour grapes"? Again....what is the problem with this conclusion? Let's say that the grapes in that vineyard were all sour. In that case, it would simply be a statement of a fact and perfectly fine.
That's exactly where we poke at the fox- he didn't know that the grapes were sour but simply assumed that they were. Now....what should the fox have said? Do we want the fox to have a life-long complex that he is a downright loser ....because in a particular vineyard, on a specific creeper...some of the sweetest of grapes existed but he couldn't reach them? A conclusion such as that, would have surely nailed the fox's future.
The fox was right. May be, the sweetest of grapes existed, may be not. He tried a few times. He couldn't be faulted for lack of effort. He was pragmatic and gave up an exercise in futility. Most importantly, he made peace with himself with the remark.."these are sour grapes". He was mentally at ease. He moved on....moved on... to greener pastures where the sweetest of grapes sprang from the ground and required no effort at all!
Such is life. Be that frisky fox. Be a winner!!
Sometimes, the moral is right, but the story is questionable, at least for the mind of a child. Take the story of the "Thirsty Crow". We agree that the crow was clever and as an Indian bird, took recourse to "jugaad"- that "desi" trait to make things "work" with a crafty and street smart mind. But what you don't want is for your curious two-year old to take the story too seriously and try the experiment out with the glass of milk... and in the process, swallow both the milk and the pebble! It is a serious possibility with absolutely horrendous consequences, something which the story in all its simplicity just doesn't bother about.
Sometimes, the story is wrong and the moral is also wrong. We go to that story of the woodpecker which pulled out the bone stuck to the throat of the lion. That's exactly why the first story has a problem! Evidently, the lion appears to have towed the crow's line and put pieces of bone along with its water in its water-bowl and yes... paid a very dear price.
Anyway, coming back to this story, the lion, on a different day was ungrateful and wouldn't share its food with the woodpecker. It is known to have remarked to the woodpecker- "I could have swallowed you when you tried to remove the bone from my throat. But I didn't. Be thankful for that and don't disturb me!"
There are some factual anomalies here. How could the lion have swallowed the woodpecker when the bone was already stuck to its throat? Wouldn't the thought- what if the woodpecker also gets stuck along with the bone...crossed the lion's mind!? Or does the story mean... that after pulling out the bone, the woodpecker would have gone in...for a second inspection, to see if the throat was now perfectly fine and on this second attempt, the lion would have had the possibility to consume the woodpecker? The story is obviously flawed with some gaping holes in its plot line.
The woodpecker flew away. At a later point in time, when the lion was asleep, it pecked off one of the eyes of the lion. The lion howled in pain and questioned the woodpecker. The woodpecker is said to have retorted-"I could have blinded you in both eyes. But I didn't. Be thankful for that and don't disturb me!" The moral of the story is of course "Tit for tat".
A popular story all right.. which finds a mention in most picture books that we read out to children. It is left to the reader to imagine what impact it could have on the fertile, tender mind of a child- leading to a society which justifies revenge and each person bays for the other's blood.
Thankfully, children are a lot more intelligent than we make them out to be. They take the story only at face value, memorize it, parrot it verbatim in class (along with the moral)... when their story-telling turn comes and are off in a flash to some other sensible activity.
The third possibility in the analysis of short stories is....where the story is right, but we have got the moral completely wrong. The fox entered a vineyard and tried to get the grapes which were a little too high. After jumping a few times, he is said to have slunk away with the remark "These are sour grapes". We laugh at the fox.
The question is... what else is the fox expected to do? Obviously, the grapes were too high and couldn't be reached. Do we want the fox to keep jumping till he possibly perishes out of sheer exhaustion!?
Or do we resent only the remark of the fox- "these are sour grapes"? Again....what is the problem with this conclusion? Let's say that the grapes in that vineyard were all sour. In that case, it would simply be a statement of a fact and perfectly fine.
That's exactly where we poke at the fox- he didn't know that the grapes were sour but simply assumed that they were. Now....what should the fox have said? Do we want the fox to have a life-long complex that he is a downright loser ....because in a particular vineyard, on a specific creeper...some of the sweetest of grapes existed but he couldn't reach them? A conclusion such as that, would have surely nailed the fox's future.
The fox was right. May be, the sweetest of grapes existed, may be not. He tried a few times. He couldn't be faulted for lack of effort. He was pragmatic and gave up an exercise in futility. Most importantly, he made peace with himself with the remark.."these are sour grapes". He was mentally at ease. He moved on....moved on... to greener pastures where the sweetest of grapes sprang from the ground and required no effort at all!
Such is life. Be that frisky fox. Be a winner!!
No comments:
Post a Comment