A Bangalore publisher said recently that, when she received a certain manuscript, she noticed that it was by a young author – who, moreover, had a certain “ease of style”.
 
A while ago, I had occasion to speak with a representative from the British Council in Chennai regarding a certain annual competition for poetry and short fiction. I asked her point blank whether the competition was slanted to favour younger writers, and had the satisfaction of a straightforward answer.  “We may, I suppose, use an older writer as a sort of catalyst – you know, to help out younger writers here and there. But our main focus is, yes, on encouraging younger writers.”

So there you are. The emphasis in the field of showbusiness and in every other field, too, it seems to me, is on encouraging younger artistes and writers. Never mind that the French painter, Claude Monet, continued to paint into his eighties. Never mind all the recorded achievements of older folk in various walks of life.

This is a peculiarly American myth – that younger is better; that the latest product is better than its predecessor, and the like. This may hold true of technology, medical science and certain areas of research; but it is certainly not true of the humanities, arts and letters.

At what other period in recorded history did young people hold the rest of society to ransom? In societies of yore, did they dictate what people should wear, what type of music they should listen to, how they should dance, what movies they should see and what type of hairstyle they ought to sport?

This so-called syndrome of rebellion has pushed back the limits of what is and is not acceptable in dress, behaviour and speech in developed Western countries: with the result that we have “mutton dressed as lamb” (with apologies to vegetarians). That is to say, older folk dressing and behaving like younger ones, usually with grotesque results.

Older people who have not stopped growing inwardly continue to mix this magic in with all that they do. This is a mystery to those who have not been tempered. Is it, therefore, wise, objective or balanced on the part of publishers and other such professionals in older cultures to ignore the work of older people and “encourage” only the younger ones? Or is it myopic and pseudo-American?