30 Suresh Joshi and Indian Poetics

Dr. Mrinmoy Pramanick

Introduction

In his Indian Literary Criticism: Theory and Interpretation, Gnesh Devy commented, “What B.S. Mardhekar has been to Marathi, Suresh Joshi (1921-1986) has been to Gujarati”. He is one among the avant garde writers in Gujarati literature. He is pioneer to bring modernism in Gujarati Literature. Devy commented, his idea fails to be carried forward in Gujarati literature but his contribution to short fiction, literary prose and literary criticism is path breaking. He has immense contribution in bringing self-awareness in Gujarati literature. His contribution in the theory of fiction is remarkable. He propagated the idea of Ghatanavilop which is minimizing the plot and emphasizing on the ‘suggestive potential of language’.

Devy took a part from Chintayami Manasa, translated by Upendra Nanavati to represent the literary thought of Joshi. And this piece talks about the theory of interpretation.

History of Gujarati Literature

The history of Gujarati literature may be traced to 1000 AD, and this literature has flourished since then to the present. It is unique in having almost no patronage from a ruling dynasty, other than its composers. Well known laureates of Gujarati literature are Hemchandracharya, Narsinh Mehta, Mirabai, Akho, Premanand, Bhatt, Shamal Bhatt, Dayaram, Dalpatram, Narmad, Govardhanram Tripathi, Mohandas Gandhi, K. M. Munshi, Umashankar Joshi, Suresh Joshi, Pannalal Patel and Rajendra Keshavlal Shah.

Gujarati literature is divided mainly into two eras or ‘Yug’, the medieval and modern, with these eras being further subdivided. The medieval era (1000 AD-1850 AD) is subdivided into ‘before Narsinh’ and ‘after Narsinh’ periods. Some scholars further subdivide it as ‘Rasa yug’, ‘Sagun Bhakti’ and ‘Nirgun Bhakti’. The modern era (1850 AD to date) is divided into ‘Sudharak Yug’ or ‘Narmad Yug’, ‘Pandit Yug’ or ‘Govardhan Yug’, ‘Ghandhi Yug’, ‘Anu-Ghandhi Yug’, ‘Adhunik Yug’ and ‘Anu-Adunik Yug’.

Early Life and Works

Suresh Joshi is rightly deemed to be the forerunner of the modernist and post-modernist trends in the post independent period of Gujarati literature. His stature as a critic has grown manifold over the decades. He brought into Gujarati criticism the western methods of the critical evaluation of a work of art and scripted a new era in the history of literary criticism in Gujarat.

Suresh Hariprasad Joshi who ushered in an experimental and formalistically oriented literary culture was born in Valod in Surat district of Gujarat. He acquired the Master’s degree and Ph. D. from Bombay University and taught in Colleges. He also joined the faculty of M S University, Baroda later. He edited Phalguni (1945-47), Vani (1947-51), Maneesha (1951-56), Kshitij (1961-67) and Etad, which through the decades, separately and together, helped develop a new generation of writers such as Sitanshu Yashaschandra, Gulam Mohammed Sheikh and other younger writers who eventually emerged as major voices of Gujarati literature. Suresh Joshi’s works include Pratyancha Itara (poetry, 1961), Chhinnapatra (novel), Grihapravesh (short stories, 1957), Na Tatra Suryo Bhati (short stories), Janantike (essays, 1965), Gujarati Kavita No Asvad (literary criticism) and Chintayami Manasa (Essays). A few years ago, Gujarat Sahitya Academi, Ahmedabad published two volumes of his critical writings entitled Suresh Joshi nu Sahitya Vishwa(2005). The awards and honours he received include Gujarat Government prizes, Soviet Land Nehru Award, Ranjitram Gold Medal, Narmad Gold Medal and Nanalal Memorial prize. He declined the Sahitya Akademi award (1983) for a collection of critical essays, Chintayami Manasa, because the Award / citation did not recognize his creative writing. He generated a profound modernist enthusiasm in the field and ushered in a new era in Gujarati literature. He was deeply read in Eastern and Western philosophy and literature and drew on a whole repertoire of artistic strategies. However, Joshi’s more ambitious work has always defied classification. To fathom the nuances of his writings call for the finely honed skills one brings to the reading of Kafka, Joyce and Borges. The necessity that drove his work was the aspiration to reach out to a community of minds beyond regional and national boundaries.

Joshi’s Contribution

He brought modernism to Gujarati literature as like B. S. Mardhekar to Marathi. His contribution to short fiction, literary prose and literary criticism is remarkable. He gave acute selfawareness to Gujarati literature. His critical writing highlights the processes of aesthetic transformation in literary transactions. He introduced a theory of fiction in Gujarati known as ‘Ghatanavilop‘ which insisted on minimizing the plot element and enriching the suggestive potential of language. His collection of critical essays – Chintayami Mansa (1983) received a Sahitya Akademi Award.

Like a New Critic, Suresh Joshi proclaims that a work of art is self-sufficient and it doesn’t need to and shouldn’t become the vehicle of cultural values. He vehemently opposed the supremacy of the element of story in creative writing and strove to establish the form of a work of art as an equally significant part of the challenges of a writer.

His critical writings mark a new epoch in the evolution of the modern literary criticism in Gujarat. He has left behind sufficient critical writings to inspire a lot of critical discourses on himself for many years to come. Translating his critical essays from Gujarati into English is of vital significance as that exceeds the barriers of language and nationality. It is the need of the day to place his work on the global horizon because that is where it is destined to belong by the sheer originality of its outlook and its sincere and unbiased evaluation of literature and criticism in Gujarat.

Joshi as a Critic

Suresh Joshi as a Critic All that one can say about a great critic can be said about Suresh Joshi. He came on the critical scene in Gujarat as the harbinger of a novel outlook towards literature as well as towards the way a work of art should be interpreted. He was the chief proponent of a critical pursuit which didn’t stop at thematic concerns of a text like many others; in fact, he went on to discuss the new ways of interpretations of the literary theory and criticism in the West, especially those which concerned themselves with the form of the text. Considering his views on form and his incisive way of evaluating literature, he can easily be termed a New Critic, but he was one who did not stop at New Criticism. Formalist moorings and beyond The Fomalist moorings of Sursh Joshi are evident in his writings, and hence his dissatisfaction with the then critical scenario which did not move beyond the plot and characterization in the interpretation of a work or remained hostage to the moral message of a text. The insistence on the formal aspects of texts is an undercurrent that runs through his critical texts. While his other counterparts were busy reading the moral message of a text and its influence on the society, he was engaging himself on writing full-length articles on different dimensions such as how a writer employs his symbols, how a poet has to reinvent expressions, words in order to convey his ideas, and how signs are at play in a text. He may be taking recourse to the Western literary theory and criticism but it must be borne in mind that he was equally conversant with literature of his times. It can be explained in this way: while he discusses the idea of symbol-forming which is Western, his examples are from Gujarati literature. Thus, he creates a dialogue between Western literary theory and Gujarati literature as well as literary theory. His major achievement lies in the fact that he was not inclined to stick to one favourite literary theory and spend the rest of his life interpreting texts with the help of the same. He kept on moving with the currents of the literary theory and criticism of the world. He made it a point to raise some of the fundamental concerns of Guajarati criticism. Firstly, he questioned the sanity of those critics who simply refuse to look beyond Indian shore or worse borders of the state of Gujarat. He points out time and again that the critical world needed to change the way it perceived a text. Also, its critical analysis needed to be reconsidered keeping the world literature and literary theory and criticism in mind. He was very sad about the complete negligence being shown towards the form of a text in the Gujarati criticism of his times, to say the least of his predecessors. Perhaps, that is the reason why he took it upon himself to write full-fledged articles on each of the key questions troubling Gujarati criticism. For example, he raised the questions about the reasons for writing and reading poetry. He engages in a discussion on the time-honoured question of the responsibility of a poet. He writes in this vein to expound some of the fundamental conclusions of his study and analysis. He has been an iconic figure who fathomed the depths of the Western literary theory and criticism in an unprecedented manner. His discourse on literature is deeply rooted in the gamut of world literature. He had busied himself for years in a dialogue with the literary geniuses like Sartre, Camus, Kafka and Dostoevsky. He introduced the average Gujarati critic to the best which was being thought and discussed in the West. He does not end up writing reviews or reverential testimonies of the Western literary theory, but he goes on to critique each one of them and discusses its relevance and applicability to the Gujarati critical scenario. He also brought it to bear upon the analysis of the works of art in a practical way. He writes on the major schools of Western literary theory and criticism and also on the leading Western minds who transformed the world. He discusses all the forms as they prevailed at that time in India and in the West and looked at them in the light of the newest possible critical approach and illustrate, perhaps, how criticism as an exercise has to be performed. His contribution to Indian literary theory in general and Gujarati criticism in particular, is manifold and multidimensional. He viewed, whether it is creative process of writing or the formalistic aspects or the relevance and effectiveness of creative writing on the society, everything in a new light and with the unsparing rationality of a philosopher.

Theory of Interpretation

According to Suresh Joshi, the poetry is creation and not imitation and so interpretation may cause the loss of spontaneity of a response and as a result give rise to anti – art intellectualism. He further states that in the name of interpretation, the desired immediacy in aesthetic experience is generally displaced. He says that mediocrity dominates the business of interpretation and so instead of humble empathy with art, it shows an arrogant dissatisfaction.

First Joshi begins to understand what interpretation is. Whether at all interpretation is possible. Interpretation is not artha, artha is rasa in Indian aesthetics. Interpretation, therefore is analysis. Analysis of the ‘aesthetic process’. Then he raised a question what we do in interpretation? And how important is this interpretation in analyzing language of a poetry to understand the ‘linguistic activity’ of the poet.

He briefly defines interpretation in this way, “interpretation is analysis of the structure of a literary work” (Devy: 185). What does interpretation do:

• “postulate the thematic as well as the semantic premises about a literary text”
• “act of pointing at the suggested meaning of a literary text”
• Find out the mutual relationship of images, characters and episodes
• What author want to say through a text
• “Whatever a critic does to a literary text is an interpretation”
• “issue of interpretation or aesthetic experience is connected with understanding”
• ‘perception of meanings’ precedes its interpretation
• “analysis of stylistic features has a distinct place in the interpretation of poetry”
• Interpretation of poetry is possible when a dialogue is possible between a poet and his reader.
• Interpretation of the meaning of poetry is a prose rendering and it does not necessarily enhance the aesthetic enjoyment (Devy: 191).
• Poet has said vs. poet has done
• Aesthetic enjoyment vs interpretation
• “interpretation must not render the aesthetic experience secondary”
  

Reference

• http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3195/5/05_chapter%201.pdf
• http://www.researchscholar.co.in/downloads/49-dr.-sunil-sagar.pdf
• http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4107/6/06_chapter%201.pdf