I know this is late, but I was laying in bed feeling guilty for dropping the ball on the blog post and thinking about my school courses, and how the material from vastly different courses somehow synthesize into a coherent theme. One example that struck me and prompted me to write this in spite of the tardiness was the idea of the collective voice.
In both Oppals juridical text and the material in my ASIS 358 class on the poets of India, a single voice editing for many or many voices perpetuating a single message become prevalent issues. These two things relate because, as we’ve learned, in India some of the very prominent voices in poetics often gain a followership. One example being of Mira, a 16th century radical poet (in her historical/social niche). She became so famous that poems began to be written by people claiming to be her. This poaching of authorship was(And is in contemporary times) not received with contempt, but is embraced. Her message is the enduring trait that matters, more so than the concept of who the real author is herself. This idea of authorship made me think of parallels with “Missing Sarah” and “Forsaken,” and how the idea of speaking for others has become such a huge issue, for example when MDV edits Sarah’s voice, or when poems are submitted in lieu for eulogies and miniature life narratives. It makes me wonder where the balance is between the message, the propelling force behind a work, a works purpose and the details of the author and the people represented by the topic. Such are my thoughts at 1am.

Citations:

Martin, Nancy. “Mirabai by Nancy M. Martin.” Mirabai. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2014. .