Samaresh Basus Tana Poren: Towards a Formalist Reading Judhajit Sarkar Department of Comparative iterature!

Jadavpur "niversit#

$aul de %an is supposed to have defined theor# as &'ontrolled refle'tion on the formation of method( )Bal *++,-. /ne might ver# well take issue with this statement 0# re'ounting! a la 1mi#a Dev! the et#mologi'al 0asis of the word &method( )meta 2hodos3 going4moving after- that is situated! if not in 'ontradistin'tion then at least at a 'ertain 'on'eptual distan'e! from what &theor#( means. 5eedless to sa#! we seldom remem0er this distin'tion and thus! often 'onfuse &method( as something read#made! something not arrived at from the material at hand 0ut as something that 'an 0e applied to the material lo'k6sto'k and 0arrel. 7ikhen0aum sa#s in The Theor# of the &Formal %ethod(!
The so 'alled formal method grew out of a struggle for a s'ien'e of literature that would 0e 0oth independent and fa'tual8 it is not the outgrowth of a parti'ular methodolog#. The notion of a method has 0een so e9aggerated that it now suggests too mu'h. :e neither dis'uss methodolog# nor ;uarrel a0out it. :e speak and ma# speak onl# a0out theoreti'al prin'iples suggested to us not 0# this or that read#6made methodolog#8 0ut 0# the e9amination of spe'ifi' material in its spe'ifi' 'onte9t. )7ikhen0aum <=>?-

The purpose of this essa# is not to laun'h an atta'k on the Formalist prin'iples whi'h! 7ikhen0aum suggests! 'an 0e derived onl# 0# the &e9amination of spe'ifi' material in its spe'ifi' 'onte9t(. 1s a student of Comparative iterature lo'ated in the @ndian literar# 'onte9t! one 'an hardl# disagree with the fa't that prin'iples! whether Formalist or otherwise! 0# whi'h a te9t is to 0e anal#Aed must 0e provided 0# the understanding of the te9t itself! 0# &going after( it for some amount of

time. Bowever! @ would like to 0egin 0# 'onfessing m# dis'omfort with 7ikhen0aums position regarding &method( as that 'onvolutes to a 'onsidera0le e9tent what the word a'tuall# suggests. @ must also mention at the ver# outset that what follows is nothing 0ut an attempt at pra'ti'ing the methodolog# that Comparative iterature e;uips its students with! and that 'omes ver# 'lose to what 7ikhen0aum 'alls &e9amination of spe'ifi' material in its spe'ifi' 'onte9t(. The material that @ intend to use in this stud# is Samaresh Basus <=C= Bangla novel Tana Poren under the light of what is generall# understood as the &Formalist( mode of 'riti'ism. Though histori'all# it is not possi0le to identif# a formalist &s'hool( of literar# s'holarship with a spe'ifi' agenda! there are however 'ertain tools of understanding as'ri0a0le to the works of the group of s'holars 0elonging to the %os'ow inguisti' Cir'le! spearheaded 0# Roman Jako0son and OPAYAZ! led 0# Diktor Shklovsk#. The e9tent to whi'h these tools are relevant to the @ndian literar# 'ultures in general and to the 'hosen te9t in parti'ular is what this stud# intends to s'rutiniAe. The approa'h in su'h a situation 'annot 0ut 0e 'entrifugal! that is one must move from the te9t to the tools of understanding and not vi'e6versa in order to 'he'k whether with the help of these it is possi0le to 'on'eptualiAe a 'oherent methodologi'al framework that 'an 0e utiliAed to situate the present te9t in a parti'ular literar# s#stem and thus! understand its lo'ation 0etter. But 0efore that some words of 'larifi'ation on the sele'tion of this spe'ifi' te9t. Samaresh Basu holds an interesting position in Bangla literar# 'ulture. 1n intelle'tual 0ent evidentl# toward %ar9ian ideolog#! he however institutionall# 0elonged to a group that the Bengali %ar9ists of that time 'ondemned as upholder of petit60ourgeois prin'iples. Basu! therefore! was looked at skepti'all# 0# his fellow %ar9ists and even identified as a part of the &rea'tionar#( for'es. @t is not the right pla'e to de'ide who was at fault )in an# 'ase a fruitless task- 0ut a 'ertain similarit# 'an 0e eviden'ed 0etween the intelle'tual 'limate of :est Bengal in the late <=>+s and C+s

and that of the immediate #ears in post6Revolution Soviet "nion! an age to whi'h the so6'alled &formalists( 0elonged. @t is well known that the tag &formalist( was in itself a pejorative one and hardl# des'ri0es the nature of the s'holarl# out'ome of the formalists i. The 'ulture of hostilit#! o''asionall# militant! that prevailed 0etween %ar9ism and Formalism in the Soviet in the late <=*+s and ,+s was largel# refle'ted in Bangla literar# 'ulture in the tur0ulent #ears of >+s and C+s! where too Formalism was often identified with rea'tionism. @t would 0e foolishness to imagine identi'alit# 0etween these two situations! distant in 0oth time and spa'e. :hat nevertheless is worthwhile to note is the 'ulture of dis0elief 0etween these two 'riti'al tenden'ies in their various avatars. @n :est Bengal! of 'ourse! there has in a'tualit# 0een no group identifia0le as Formalists. $eople per'eived as threat to progressivism and therefore! tagged Formalists 0# the @ndian %ar9ists were mostl# writers and not! like the Russian Formalists! s'holars of literature. Ben'e! when @ tr# to situate Basu within this 'ulture of mutual inhospitalit# all that @ tr# to do is to 'larif# the &stru'ture of feeling( that informed the writing of a te9t like the present one. 5o te9t! an#0od# would understand! 'an 0e &formalist(. But then the most 'ru'ial ;uestion that awaits answer is what the 'on'ept of &form( at all means in the 'onte9t of @ndian literatures. %# reading of the present te9t reveals and this is what @ plan to dis'uss in what follows! that approa'hing the te9ture of @ndian literar# te9ts demands a ne'essar# overlap 0etween the 'riti'al standards of 0oth %ar9ism and Formalism. 1n e9'lusivel# formalist approa'h to @ndian te9ts is 0ound to fail if not 0uttressed 0# a 'lear understanding of what %ar9ism would 'all the &histori'al for'es( at work within the literar# s#stem to whi'h a given te9t 0elongs. et me 0egin with the ver# title of the te9t. Tana-poren has 'ome to impl# &tension( in 'ollo;uial Bangla and is mostl# used regardless of the original 'onte9t in whi'h it originated. This is a 'lassi' e9ample of the metaphori'al meaning of a word 0e'oming its dominant use! the a'tual meaning appearing to have 0een lost almost entirel# in transit. @n the 'onte9t of handloom tana-poren means &warp and woof(. :ikipedia

informs and rightl# enough that the &0asi' purpose of an# loom is to hold the warp threads under tension to fa'ilitate the interweaving of the weft threads( )itali's mine-. But when this signifier is dislo'ated from its original 'onte9t of signifi'ation and applied in another! it is onl# natural that the sign produ'ed in that 'hanged 'onte9t would also 0e somewhat different. The pro'ess through whi'h this 'hanged meaning of a word pushes all other meanings of it into o0livion and 0e'omes! in Jako0sonian terms! the &dominant(! is informed 0# several fa'tors! one of the most 'ru'ial of whi'h is the repeated literar# use of the word with its 'hanged meaning. Su'h re'urrent uses of a word in literature 'reate a 'ertain threshold of e9pe'tation for the reader and it is from this threshold that he 0egins interpreting the meaning of the word. The plot )provided we are talking in terms of the narrative mode- 'ontri0utes to this pro'ess of meaning6making deli0eratel#. Therefore! the moment the word tanaporen appears on the page the reader of standard Bangla prose immediatel# &re'ogniAes( it from his previous readings as &tension(! al0eit of a parti'ular nature. @n the 'onte9t of Bangla literature this parti'ular tension has 0een meti'ulousl# 'onstru'ted! from Bankim'handra downwards! as the tension prevailing largel# in man6 woman relationship. :ith a few e9'eptions here and there! tana-poren 0etween the man and the woman 'an even 0e said to 0e leitmotif running through most Bangla mainstream narratives. This! then! is the &horiAon of e9pe'tation( that the title of Basus novel 'reates for the reader. But as the narrative progresses one realiAes soon enough that the &dominant( meaning of tana-poren is the least of Basus intentionsE
... ! ! ! ! F ! ! " ! # 6

1''ording to Shklovsk#! 1fter we see an o0je't for several times! we 0egin to re'ogniAe it. The o0je't is in front of us and we know a0out it! 0ut we do not see itG1rt removes o0je'ts from the automatism of

per'eptionG()Shklovsk# <=>?-. The ;uestion of 'ourse is! how does art do it and in order to a'hieve whatF et us suspend the se'ond ;uestion for the moment and 'on'entrate on the first. iterar# artistr# removes the o0je't or more pre'isel#! the resour'es used to represent that o0je't in language from the &automatism of per'eption( in several wa#s. /ne of the most important tools provided 0# Formalism to understand these wa#s is &defamialiraAation(. @f we a''ept that literature is a semioti'all# organiAed sli'e of realit#! we will perhaps also a''ept the e9isten'e of 'ertain tools of organiAation whi'h are used repeatedl# to signif# a parti'ular o0je't. These tools! in 'ase of literature! are words. :e have talked a0out how a parti'ular meaning of a word 0e'omes &dominant( as a result of regular use! 0oth in and outside literature. This pro'ess 'an justifia0l# 0e 'alled the pro'ess of familiariAation or in Shklovsk#s terms &automatiAation(4 &ha0itualiAation( and &ha0itualiAation devours works! 'lothes! furniture! ones wifeG.1nd art e9ists that one ma# re'over the sensation of life( )i0id.-. :ords! needless to sa#! have lives of their own. $opulating the words with meanings in a wa# so that the# 0ring 0a'k the &freshness of sensation( is the task 0# whi'h literature 'an 0e identified as a distin't field of human enterprise! a task that Formalist poeti's has taught us to 'all the 'onstru'tion of &literariness! that whi'h makes a given work a literar# work( )Jako0son <=*<-. DefamiliriAation works as one of the most foundational devi'es through whi'h &literariness( is engineered and it is with the help of this 'on'eptual tool that literature 'an 0e distinguished from all other realms of 'ons'ious human a'tivit#. @n the a0ove6;uoted e9'erpt from Basus narrative one level 'an 0e eviden'ed where this &defamiliariAation( is operationaliAed. B# re6 situating the phrase tana-poren in its original 'onte9t of signifi'ation! 0# la#ing the metaphor 0are! the narrator 'onstru'ts an old signified. But this old signified unsettles the per'eption of the reader of standard Bangla prose! who has long 0een ha0itualiAed in the 'hanged meaning of the word6 &defamiliriAation( realiAed here in the ver# name of the te9t. But Formalism has also taught us not to 'onstrue &form( merel# as an &envelope( of the &'ontent(! to see &form( and &'ontent( as divor'ed

from and imposa0le on ea'h other. The agenda of Formalism )if an#- has 0een dire'ted toward! in 7ikhen0aums words! &the anal#sis of form understood as 'ontent( )i0id.-. This understanding of the form as 'ontent vis6H6vis Basus narrative 0e'omes 'learer as one follows the unfolding of plot of Tana Poren. :ithin the first ten pages of the novel the reader is posited with the 'onte9t against whi'h the meaning of tana-poren is to 0e interpreted. The plot of the narrative is lo'ated in the 'onte9t of the baluchori handloom industr# of Bishnupur in Bankura. @n & ! the author informs us that baluchori is the marvelous 'reation of the badshahee era. The meti'ulous pro'ess of deindustrialiAation 0# the British had destro#ed the whole 'ommunit# engaged in weaving baluchori sarees. But in the 0eginning of the last 'entur# the industr# was revived again through the efforts of 1ksha#kumar $atranga of Bishnupur. This is the spatio6histori'al 0a'kdrop against whi'h the plot of Tana Poren is set and it is this 'onte9t that supplies the narrator all his pe'uliar phrases! metaphors and images. Tana-poren is one su'h phrase! whose a'tual meaning appears to 0e also its &dominant( meaning in the 'onte9t of the narrative. But appearan'e is often de'eitful and in the realm of literature! even this de'eit is 'arefull# 'onstru'ted. Tana-poren has a far greater role to pla# in Basus narrative than it initiall# seems to have. The 'entral protagonist is Tana Poren is $an'hanan Iint! the most talented #oung baluchori designers and weavers of Bishnupur. 1 dis'iple of 10ha# Ihan /stad! $an'hanan or $an'hu is married to choto bou %oti! has four 'hildren and is responsi0le for taking 'are of his old father! now 0lind and in'apa0le of working with the loom an#more. 1 'onsidera0le part of the plot des'ri0es the events of one da#. The present author is not even remotel# 'apa0le of providing the details of these des'riptions. @f the &aestheti' fun'tion( 'an 0e singled out as the defining feature of literar# language! then one must su0mit that without pa#ing 'lose attention to the language of the te9t it is impossi0le to 'onstru't an# method of reading that aestheti' fun'tion. @ shall 0e 'oming 0a'k to this shortl#. For the time

0eing! let us 'on'entrate on the events of the first da#. There are man# des'riptive su06streams! sometimes running parallell# and suddenl# overlapping ea'h other. But the two most noti'ea0le events whi'h stand out 'learl# are! )a- $an'hus dream of drawing a new baluchori design and his efforts at #ielding the flawless result and! )0- %otis 'han'e en'ounter at Jamuna with Tuki! the wife of Jogen Beet! $an'hus 'hief rival. 1s per plot 'onstru'ting! these two streams seem to 0e running parallel to ea'h other. But as the narrative unfolds! it is slowl# realiAed that 0oth of them are ine9tri'a0l# 'onne'ted. @n 0oth of them and 'onse;uentl#! in the 'onte9t of the narrative too tana-poren serves as the 'entral metaphor! as the &dominant( that guarantees the 'oheren'e of the narrative stru'ture. @n Shklovsk#s words! &1 work is 'reated artisti'all# so that its per'eption is impeded and the greatest possi0le effe't is produ'ed through the slowness of per'eption( )i0id.-. @n Tana Poren the pro'ess of affe'ting this slowness is indeed &slow( enough. @t is onl# when one is half wa# through the narrative that one 0egins to realiAe that the &dominant( meaning of tana-poren that the narrator had 'onstru'ted 0# revitaliAing its literal meaning has its metaphori'al e9tension too. The triangular relationship that the narrator 'reates 0etween $an'hu! %oti and Tuki is sustained and understood most effe'tivel# 0# the metaphori'al impli'ation of the word tana-poren as &tension(. @n fa't! on'e the triangle is esta0lished the h#phen pla'ed 0etween tana and poren 0egins revealing its signifi'an'e 'learl#. @t then seems to have 0een a tool for predi'ting the gap that will 'onse;uentl# appear 0etween $an'hu and %oti. The metaphor however operates on another level also. $an'hus dream regarding his new design! its approval 0# 10ha# /stad and the su0se;uent events where baluchori starts losing its ground of 'ommer'ial relevan'e again! thus putting a traumati' end to the weaving of the design into a new saree J all these have tana-poren as the threading element! the single6most 'ru'ial prin'iple of stru'turing. The last few senten'es of the novel readE
...$ % ! " ! & " $ "&! 6!

" $ "! $

The readers per'eption is slowed down 0# making him travel a long wa# through the dense path of meaning making of a single signifier! from its metaphori'al meaning to the literal and then e9tending that literal meaning towards several lines of metaphori'al signifi'an'es. 5eedless to sa#! this is not a phenomenon that o''urs regularl# in &pra'ti'al language(! although it is onl# 0# using the resour'es e9isting in the &pra'ti'al language( that the effe't of the &poeti' language( is a'hieved and &literariness( is formed. :hether we identif# &pra'ti'al language( with prose and &poeti' language( with verse is another ;uestion! whi'h @ intend to dis'uss presentl#. 79'erpts previousl# ;uoted from Tana Poren makes one thing 'lear. The language of the te9t is 'ertainl# Bangla 0ut it is not the kind of literar# Bangla that 0egan to 0e standardiAed during the 'olonial times. StandardiAation follows its own me'hanisms and has several la#ers. But the one fa'tor that 'an 0e said to 0e present in all linguisti' standardiAations is the attempt to purge the language of its lo'al! &rusti'( usages as mu'h as possi0le. Following the traje'tor# of standardiAed literar# Bangla one 'an see two prin'iple streams6 the overtl# SanskritiAed prose of Bankim'handra with the e9'ess of tatsama words and the prose st#le with the e9u0eran'e of tadbhaba words of whi'h Ra0indranath 'an 0e said to 0e the most prolifi' pra'titioner. But 0oth these st#les with whi'h the ordinar# Bengali reader is most familiar with pa# little attention to the sounds that the Banglas of different geographi'al lo'ations within and outside the politi'al 0oundar# of Bengal make. The narrator of Tana Poren tells usE
&F ' ( F ( ) * % +, . ) /0 %1 2 . $ ...+6+ 3+ 4& 6' "

This ma# remind the readers of @ndian literatures of the 'omment of Bharatendu Barish'handra that what one 'alls &Bindi( 'hanges after ea'h kos. The same thing perhaps applies to all the @ndian languages whi'h

went a similar pro'ess of standardiAation! prea'hed 0# the 'oloniAers and pra'ti'ed 0# the lo'al 0ourgeoisie. The narrator of Tana Poren uses two varieties of Bangla! the tadbhabized Bangla and the lo'al Bangla of $urulia! thus straining the readers 'omprehensi0ilit# of the &automatiAed( literar# Bangla. This results in the 'onstru'tion of Tana Porens &literariness( in a different wa#. 1''ording to Jako0son one of the features 0# whi'h Formalism 'an 0e 'hara'teriAed is 0# &the anal#sis of the sound aspe'ts of a literar# work( )i0id.-. The narrator of Tana Poren invites the readers to pa# 'lose attention to the sound of the words that he uses in the te9t6 &mimesis(! so to speak! in the 'onte9t of @ndian literatures has this added strand to it. &Form(! in su'h 'ases! does not just 0uttress the &'ontent( 0ut 0e'omes the &'ontent( itself. This is well known in poetr#! 0ut here this is novelist Samaresh Basu who 'ontri0utes to its formation 0# pla'ing the &pra'ti'al language( side 0# side with the standard &poeti' language( that 'ulminates ultimatel# in the &literariness( of the te9t. Comparative iterature tea'hes us to &hear( the sounds whi'h go into the making of this distinguishing feature of literature. 1nd this 'an ver# justifia0l# 0e 'alled Comparative iteratures &formalist lega'#(. KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK Referen'esE
<. Bal! %ieke. From Cultural Studies to Cultural 1nal#sisE 1 Controlled Refle'tion on the Formation of %ethod. Interrogating Cultural tudies. ed. $aul Bowman. ondonE $luto $ress. *++,. *. Basu! Samaresh. Tana Poren. IolkataE 1njali $rakashani! *++C. ,. 7ikhen0aum! Boris. The Theor# of the &Formal %ethod(. !ussian "ormalist Criticism: "our #ssa$s. trns. emon and Reis. in'olnE "niversit# of 5e0raska $ress. <=>?. L. Jako0son! Roman. The Dominant. !eadings in !ussian Poetics: "ormalist and structuralist %ie&s. 7d. adislav %atejka and Ir#st#na $omorska. %i'higanE %i'higan Slavi' $u0li'ations! <=CM. ?. 6666. 'odern !ussian Poetr$. trns. emon and Reis. $rague! <=*<.

>. Shklovsk#! Diktor. &1rt as Te'hni;ue. !ussian "ormalist Criticism: "our #ssa$s. trns. emon and Reis. in'olnE "niversit# of 5e0raska $ress. <=>?. C. httpE44en.wikipedia.org4wiki4 oom. **4+*4*+<,

Bereafter @ shall not 0e putting the word formalist within ;uotes! as with the 'hange of 'onte9t what this word initiall# signified has also 'hanged and now is used in a general sense for 'onvenien'es sake.