The function of literary criticism is to bring out the hidden treasures of a literary construct for enjoyment by the initiated and the uninitiated reader. If there were no Mallinatha Suri much of the beauty and grandeur of the poetry and plays of Kalidasa would have remained unexplored. But sometimes the anxiety of a few critics to exhibit their erudition rather than the excellence of the writing before them ends up in total confusion. In recent times, the plethora of critical jargon making inroads from multi-disciplinary studies has not always been helpful. There have been endless debates over the primacy of ‘form’ or ‘content’ in literary works, the exploration of id by psychoanalysts, the indeterminacy of the meaning of a text, the examination of Marxist underpinning in a text and more recently structuralist and deconstructionist approaches, with awesome display of critical tools borrowed from de Saussure, Levi Strauss and Russian Formalists. While perspicacious examination of texts, adopting some of the insights, is welcome, euphoria over latest Western fads should be critically interrogated. There could also be honest and competent attempts at ‘nativization’ of Western concepts and at rediscovering the suitability of some of the critical theories of Indian aestheticians to critical studies of modern texts.

In this issue, we present three papers on the complex issues of literary criticism and theory. In the first paper, “Form and Content: A Study in Development”, R K Mishra deals with the issue of content versus form, as advocated and practiced by four different schools: the Formalist, the Genre or Chicago, the Marxist and Psychoanalytic. Many critics argue the exclusive primacy of form over content, while some others hold the primacy of content. The author prefers a holistic approach, which considers both form and content complementary. In the second paper, “Originators of (Post) Structuralism: A Search for New Truth”, Arup Kanti Konar argues that among the critics and scholars, who contributed to the origin of Structuralism, Engels, Lenin and Holmes should be included, along with de Saussure, Levi Strauss and Barthes. Quoting the German mathematician, scientist and philosopher, Nicholas of Cusa, he feels, the more we know, the more aware we will be of our ignorance. Simon G Bernabas, in his paper, “Contemporary Critical Theory and English Studies in India”, traces the developments in modern critical theory and presents the arguments for and against the introduction of these theories in the Indian academies. It is desirable to welcome some of the new theories, while attempting to nativize them.

Consequent on the increasing phenomenon of globalization, technology is undergoing tremendous changes and English, the language of technological communication and transformation, is also deeply impacted. The omnipresent device, mobile phone, while serving the need of effective and rapid communication, is also effecting changes in English language on the phonological, lexical and syntactic levels. David Wilson, in his paper, “English in Technical Communication: A Study on Its Linguistic Features”, limits his study to the changes in SMS communication in the form of repeated letters, as in Haaaa!, YYYes!, repetition of punctuation marks, as in aha!!!! et al. As the language turns esoteric it runs the risk of becoming incomprehensible to the general reader. But that is the price we have to pay for the advances in technology!

Exoticization and romanticization of the marginalized are fairly fashionable. But writers like Mary Seacole resist such stereotype portrayal and assert their individuality, as examined by Pramod K Nayar in his paper, “Black Mobility and the Construction of the Self: Mary Seacole’s The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands”. In her travel memoir, Seacole comes across as being agential rather than as a black passive subject through mobility, entrepreneurial self and finally as selfless self serving soldiers on the Crimean war front.

The presentation of women as the stronger of the sex, inspired and sustained by Life Force, by Bernard Shaw is explored by Neelam and A S Rao in their paper, “Relevance of Life Force in the Plays of G B Shaw: Candida and Pygmalion”. Analyzing the heroines of the plays chosen, they bring out the spirit of freedom and the ability to chalk out their lives as they wish, without getting bullied by the male species.

We offer two papers dealing with writings in Bhasha literatures. The first paper, “Protest and Acquiescence: A Study of the Selected Poems of Brajendra Brahma, Bishnujyoti Kachary and Surath Narzary”, by Pradip Kumar Patra, attempts to bring the Bodo literature from margin to the center, showing up the political, cultural and social concerns of the harassed Bodo community in Assam. The other paper, “Historical Drama: Are History and Literature in Conflict?” by Kapil Chaudaha, attempts an artistic (mis-) representation of the life and romance of Kalidasa, based on the dramatist’s fictional reconstruction.

As reliable data on Kalidasa’s life is unavailable, Rakesh Mohan exercises artistic license too irreverently. Iconoclasts have a field day and they turn out to be best sellers, though the artistic excellence is suspect.

Finally, we present a perspicacious review of GRK Murty’s Leadership: The Shakespearean Way, by C Subba Rao. Sri Rao finds the work innovative and amazingly novel. He compliments the author on ingenious correlative insights and observes that such studies demonstrate the perennial appeal of the Bard of Avon, whose supremacy and infinite variety cannot be staled by custom. A blend of idealism and pragmatism and optimum charisma are essential for a successful manager or ruler, as exemplified by Henry V.

-- S S Prabhakar Rao
Consulting Editor