Among the forms of non-fiction prose that received a tremendous onward push in the modern period, was literary criticism. In the 1930's and 40's three names became most influential: A.Balakrishana Pillai (1889-1960), Joseph Mundasseri (1901-1977) and Kuttikrishna Marar (1900-1973). Their critical writings are mostly iterpretative rather than theoretical. In theory they tried to draw upon literature in other languages: Balakrishana Pillai and Mundasseri mostly upon European literature, including Russian, while Marar was mainly confined to and contented with vedic and classical Sanskrit literature. Balakrishna Pillai wrote elaborate studies of the selected lyrics of Edappalli Raghavan Pillai, Changampuzha Krishna Pillai, G.Sankara Kurup, Kedamangalam Pappukkuty and works like Kerla Varma's Mayurasandesam and Thakazhi's Thalayode (Skull). He was widely read in European literature, French, Russian, Italian etc., and often quoted from or referred to works in these languages for comparison and contrast with contemporary Malayalam literature. He was in a way responsible for the cultivation of the exotic in Malayalam literature. His obsession with theoretical aspects of literary schools and movements, with archaeology and ancient history, with myth and psycholanalysis and with literary genres and formalist criticism helped fertilize the otherwise barren ground of literary criticism in Malayalam. At time he seemed to indulge in over-simplification and categorization, but even then he did help readers to look for specific elements in literary works. He was mainly responsible for the modernization of literary taste in Malayalam. Respect for contemporary classics seems to have been his watchword.
Joseph Mundasseri began his career as a critic by looking for a means of synthesizing Indian poetic with the insights of Western literary criticism. He was able to set forth some of these views in his early work Kavya Peetika. He applied these to the works of Kumaran Asan and tried to identify the elements of greatness in Asan's work. Thus, like Balakrishna Pillai, he was also bent upon interpretting and highlighting contemporary classics. His essays in Manadandam, show his interest in ancient classics like Kalidasa's Meghadoot. His controversial theory about Roopabhadrata - formal excellence - showed that he was not evaluating a work of art solely on the basis of the proclaimed aims of a writer. But he saw the artist fundamentally as a spokesman of his age. This established his position as the chief architect of the theory of progressive literature in the 1940's. He was ably supported by a host of other critics like M.S.Devadas, S.Guptan Nair and K.Damodaran. Mundasseri demonstrated the usefulness of the comparative method even in contemporary studies in Mattoli (Echo), although his conclusions were not always logical. He tried his hand occasionally at fiction, but his place in literature is basically that of a critic. He was master of a sonorous kind of prose, full of Sanskritisms and involved construction showing the influence of English syntax. He used this style to defend proletarian writing which employs the opposite kind of style.
Exactly opposed to the stand of Mundasseri was that of Kuttikrishna Marar, a champion of Indian classics and the values of classical criticism. He started his career an an interpreter-commentator of the works of Vallathol, but soon emerged into the arena fully armed to defend values which seemed to be threatened with extinction under the onslaughts of the progressivists. His eleborate critical study of Mahabharata from the point of view of a dedicated and enlightened classicist (Bharataparyatanam), his open avowal that critical impartiality is a misconception where values are at stake, his advocacy of art of life itself, as against art for life's sake, his wonderful penetration into the fundamental principles of spiritual and moral elements in literature enabled him to establish his position as a major critic although he did not know English well and did not have the benefits of western education.
As sober as Marar, but with all the erudition of A.Balakrishna Pillai and the social commitment of Mundasseri was M.P.Paul who however did not live long enough to do justice to his talents. His studies of literary genres, especially the short story and the novel, had a tremendous impact not only on critics, but on the novelists themselves. His attempt to study aesthetics as fundamental to the practice of literary criticism shows the influence of his English education. He had an easy, unaffected kind of middle style at his command, a prose free from the mannerisms of Mundasseri and the obscurantism of Balakrishna Pillai.
A number of essayists had contributed to the growth of prose and literary criticism in the forties and fifties. K.R.Krishan Pillai , R.Narayana Panikkar, P.Sankaran Nambiar, Sooranad Kunjan Pillai, Govindankutty Nair, Kainikkara Kumara Pillai and A.D.Harisarma are only a few of them. Among the writers of biographical and critical studies may be mentioned P.K.Paremeswaran Nair (Sahitya Panchanan, C.V. Raman Pillai), K.M.George (Sadhu Kochuoonju, Jeevacharita Sahityam), K.Bhaskaran Nair (Daivaneetikku Dakshinyam IIIa), N.Krishna Pillai (Thiranjedutha Prabandhangal) and P.K.Balakrishanan (Narayana Guru, Tippu Sultan and Chandu Menon - A Study). Among the travelogues are K.P.Kesava Menon's Bilathivisesham and numerous volumes by S.K.Pottekkat. There have been many great masters of humour; the most important of them are E.V.Krishna Pillai (1895-1938) and M.R.Nair (Sanjayan, 1903-1944). Among their followers are N.P.Chellappan Nair and P.K.Rajaraja Varma. The most important autobiographies in the language include those of P.K.Narayana Pillai (Smaranamandalam: 1938), E.V.Krishna Pillai (Jeevithasmaranakal: 1941), K.M.Panikkar (Atmakatha: 1953), K.P.Kesava Menon (Kazhinja Kalam), Mundasseri (Kozhinja Ilakal) and C.Kesavan (Jeevithasamaram).
The informal essay has been enriched by the writings of E.V.Krishna Pillai (Chiriyum Chintayum in 2 parts: 1936), which are marked by satire. Sanjayan wrote social satire both in prose and in verse. The light essay has had a number of practitioners but they are mostly scattered in various periodicals. The tradition of Cherrusseri and Kunchan Nambiar have been kept up by prose writers in our time. The literature of research has grown immensely, during the period. Among the histories of literature, the gratest monuments is Ulloor's Kerala Sahitya Charitram which is a compendium of the history of Sanskrit literature in Kerala too. Dictionaries like Sreekanteswaram Padmanabha Pillai's monumental Sabdataravali have been followed by other more diversified ones. Books on science and technology and on different aspects of Gandhism and Marx have come out in recent times.
Journalism is a flourishing field and weeklies like Mathrubhumi and Malayalarajyam and monthlies like Mangalodayam used to cater to the tastes of the young as well as the older generation of both readers and writers. The fifties began as a period of controversies set afloat by the progressive movement and its politicalization. Writers were often urged to take sides, and it was argued that not taking side at all was itself taking a certain side. But amidst the din and noise of the polemics and the splash of slogans and catchwrods and stereotyped formulas, it seems that efforts were being made somewhere for a powerful take-off after the fifties.
