Tagore
sayan bhattacharyya
>bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
> Even if this is true, and I believe that to make it true we
> must first (re)define education, this just shows the
> irrational thought process of WBHS graders while granting
> maximum points to the (so-called) Rabindrik style.
You misunderstood my point completely.
I never said that the Bengali speaks in a `rabindrik style'. Such a
thing isn't even possible, because of course the Bengali language
has changed since Tagore's day. Even if such a thing were possible,
it would be dreadfully contrived.
What I said was that, the language (and the culture) in which the
educated Bengali expresses himself or herself is one which has
been _shaped_ by Tagore (and by many others besides, but Tagore
remains the single largest influence by far). This influence cannot
be measured in terms of the number of stylistic devices borrowed
from Tagore. It is a much more subliminal influence, affecting the
Bengali sensibility as a whole (much in the same way as Shakespeare
is a primal influence on the English sensibility, or Goethe on the
German).
A measure of Tagore's continued influence on the Bengali mind is
the way every post-Tagore writer has had to deal with his presence
and come to terms with him, starting with the writers of the `Kallol'
era and extending to `Krittibas' and beyond. Each of these groups
of Tagore rebelled against him, denied him and
eventually had to forge their own individual reconciliation with him.
Recall Ajit Datta's "sommukhe thakun bosi poth judi rabindra thakur..."
or Sunil Gangopadhyay's "tin joda lathir ghaye rabindra rachanabali
lutoy paposhe..." and then juxtapose it with Sankha Ghosh's description
of a soiree at Nabanita Deb Sen's house in which the erstwhile iconoclasts
of `Krittibas' sit, transfixed, listening to magical rabindrasangeet,
the former hostility forgotten or transformed.
> Please note that there is hardly in Rabindra-influence
> worth mentioning in contemporary Bengali culture, outside
> Rabindra sangeet-er anurodh-er ashor, the popularity of
> which is fast declining as well.
>
We probably live in different worlds. Why then does any appearance in
concert by Suchitra Mitra cause Rabindra Sadan to be sold out days in
advance? Why do thousands of people in the open air stadium in the
Dhakuria Lakes sing along in chorus, spontaneously, with Sumon Chaterjee
as he sings "tumi kemon kore gan koro..." ?
> respect that Tagore deserves as the (alleged) creator of the
> contemporary Bengali language.
>
Maybe you should read others' posts a little more carefully before
you attribute to them things that they never said. I never said that
Tagore was the "creator" of the Bengali language. Language is created
by the people, in an act, so to speak, of spontaneous generation. No
individual can be said to have "created" it. But individuals can and
do shape the nature of the language and the culture associated with it,
as Dante did for Italian, Goethe for German and Tagore for Bengali.
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
--
Sayan Bhattacharyya | Information is in
Artificial Intelligence Lab | the mind of the beholder.
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science |
The University of Michigan | - Ray Jackendoff
Apratim Sarkar
>In article <3jvls0$j...@news.bu.edu>, Sudeshna Das <sude...@acs3.bu.edu> wrote:
>>bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>> Even if this is true, and I believe that to make it true we
>> must first (re)define education, this just shows the
>> irrational thought process of WBHS graders while granting
>> maximum points to the (so-called) Rabindrik style.
>
>You misunderstood my point completely.
>
>I never said that the Bengali speaks in a `rabindrik style'. Such a
>thing isn't even possible, because of course the Bengali language
>has changed since Tagore's day. Even if such a thing were possible,
>it would be dreadfully contrived.
And my point was that this "dreadfully contrived" language
gets maximum points in WBHS and WBS examinations, for similar
linguistic esteems for Tagore that you forwarded. I didn't
misunderstand you at all, but just pointed out that graders also
have similar mindsets, which, BTW, IMHO is quite irrational. It
doesn't really matter, outside the notebooks of P. Acharya at
least, whether the quintessential 'Kobi' said this or said that.
>What I said was that, the language (and the culture) in which the
>educated Bengali expresses himself or herself is one which has
>been _shaped_ by Tagore (and by many others besides, but Tagore
>remains the single largest influence by far).
Since you have already said it twice, can you please explain
what you mean by "the educated Bengali"?
>This influence cannot
>be measured in terms of the number of stylistic devices borrowed
>from Tagore. It is a much more subliminal influence, affecting the
>Bengali sensibility as a whole (much in the same way as Shakespeare
>is a primal influence on the English sensibility, or Goethe on the
>German).
Can they be measured in _any_ objective way? I would love to
hear about them!
If, however, your logic is one of 'Oi, oi, zanti paro na ...'
type then I must contend that I know for sure je amar 'prati:kaale
baman oi na'.
>A measure of Tagore's continued influence on the Bengali mind is
>the way every post-Tagore writer has had to deal with his presence
Every!?
>and come to terms with him, starting with the writers of the `Kallol'
>era and extending to `Krittibas' and beyond.
Krittibas is a generation senior, to me at least. I know not of
you, but, please do not take this personally, I do not think that
a few 60+ ladies and gentlemen are proper representatives of
Bengali culture in the 90's.
Interestingly, your examples do not go beyond Krittibas.
>[..]
>
>> Please note that there is hardly in Rabindra-influence
>> worth mentioning in contemporary Bengali culture, outside
>> Rabindra sangeet-er anurodh-er ashor, the popularity of
>> which is fast declining as well.
>>
>We probably live in different worlds.
At least our focus is different.
>Why then does any appearance in
>concert by Suchitra Mitra cause Rabindra Sadan to be sold out days in
>advance?
Well, for one, it is fashionable (and cultured as well) to go to
SM concerts. Also, several people do not care about the quality
of the rendition as much as they do for the artist's fame, for,
IMHO, SM is _long_ past her prime. Also, some people suffer from
nostalgia, while others suffer from an abundance of money to waste,
so that they are busy discussing the cumulative index of the Bombay
stock market in the middle of a SM recital of 'Hridayer ekul
okul ...'. This is not very dissimilar to the facsinating experience
of watching the front rowers go to sleep in the middle of a Pandit
Jasraj concert.
Now tell me whether a promising young artist draws the same crowd
these days as SM did in her prime? (Since the choice of a promising
young artist is subjective, I will let you choose yours.)
>Why do thousands of people in the open air stadium in the
>Dhakuria Lakes sing along in chorus, spontaneously, with Sumon Chaterjee
>as he sings "tumi kemon kore gan koro..." ?
Just imagine what they would have done if Amitabh Bachchan asked
them to sing 'Jhuma chumma de de ...'. There would have been a riot.
Mass participations seldom reflect the direction of contemporary
culture; they reflect, at best, the existing directions of media-
dictated peer pressure. It is individual participations that do.
Before the advent of TV in WB, every afternoon, after coming home
from school, I remember several radios all over the locality tuned
to Calcutta A, listening to Rabindra Sangeet. I am talking of the
early 70's here. That has long become history. Instead people watch
Star TV these days.
I have nothing against it, life goes on and so does culture. But I
would like to know how many Bengalis teenagers these days remember
'Kuheli gelo, akaash-e alo, dilo je parokashi. Dhurjati-r mukher paane
Parbati-r h(n)aashi.' while talking to their sweethearts.
This is not to argue that TV is the cause for the change. It is true
that Calcutta TV didn't give Rabindra Sangeet the importance that
AIR, Calcutta did. I must say, though, that I remain forever
indebted to Calcutta TV for the performance in early 80's by
Debabrata Biswas, when he sang 'Tomar katha hetha keho to bale na.'
>> respect that Tagore deserves as the (alleged) creator of the
>> contemporary Bengali language.
>>
>
>Maybe you should read others' posts a little more carefully before
>you attribute to them things that they never said. I never said that
>Tagore was the "creator" of the Bengali language. Language is created
>by the people, in an act, so to speak, of spontaneous generation. No
>individual can be said to have "created" it.
Let's not fight over choice of words, it is childish, IMHO.
Replace it by whatever word you wish, I understand that you have
got the gist of what I was saying.
>But individuals can and
>do shape the nature of the language and the culture associated with it,
>as Dante did for Italian, Goethe for German and Tagore for Bengali.
'did' - that is in past tense. I am all for giving Tagore the
credit due from a historical POV. However, my mind, and my reason
remains stay put in the 90's, and I feel that debating whether 90's
issues were supported by/reflected in Tagore's works is both
counterproductive and confusing, and (sometimes) even as misleading
as advocating that wearing sarees will forward feminist causes.
>-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Regards,
Apra.
Raghu Seshadri
: else, I have gathered how deeply ingrained idol worship is in the
: 'educated' Bengali mind.
: >-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
: Regards,
: Apra.
I am not Bengali, nor particularly educated :-)
but I have to say Sayan wrote a very convincing
piece. Your objections are not very significant,
I must say. If Tagore is to Bengali as old Bill
is to English, then his influence is vast and
unignorable. To state this is not idol-worship.
RS
sayan bhattacharyya
>In article <3k5kj9$4...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>>In article <3k4nfi$h...@dcsun4.us.oracle.com>,
>>Apratim Sarkar <asa...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can they be measured in _any_ objective way? I would love to
>>> hear about them!
>>
>>subliminal influence. That should have already provided you
>>the answer to your question. If something isn't liminal, obviously
>>there cannot exis a metric for it.
>
> Objective analysis doesn't always require a metric.
>
You yourself said above that you "would love to hear about" how it
(Tagore's influence) could be _measured_ . I have included your own
words to this effect in case you have forgotten what you said. You
insist that we provide with you with _measurements_, and in the same
breath you say that a metric was not what you asked for.
> I agree with you that the above way of measuring Tagore's influence
> is silly indeed. Please let me know when you can think of a good
> objective way to prove your point.
>
Once again you demand _measurements_ , in contradiction to what you
said a few sentences ago.
>>Once again, let me reiterate that I consider measuring someone's influence
>>in the above way extremely silly. I did it merely because Apratim Sarkar
>>insisted that I provide a quantitative measurement.
>
> :-) Objective, not quatitative. I understand, it is real confusing
> for one who is not used to objective debate.
>
And I used to think that only _quantities_ could be _measured_ .
> You should have said the yes in capitals. What better way to prove
> a point without providing examples to support it?
>
I did provide examples. Maybe you should consider a psychometry to
have your short-term memory retention tested?
>>Note the presence of Manibhushan Bhattacharya and Joy Goswami in the
>>list I provided for your benefit. Both are post-"Krittibas" by a long shot.
>
> And, you still haven't provided any examples beyond Shottorer dashak.
> And, we are in the 90's.
Both Manibhushan Bhattacharyya and Joy Goswami are living and active
in the 90's.
>>This will be my last post on this topic as I think I have said all
>>I had to say.
>
I regret that I had to make another post on this topic. This was
because I felt that this was necessary to correct the misrepresentations
contained in Apratim Sarkar's posting.
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
--
Sayan Bhattacharyya | Information is in the
Artificial Intelligence Lab | mind of the beholder.
Sudeshna Das
Sayanbabu thik shei kaaj-ti amake korlen!
bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>Sudeshna Das <sude...@acs3.bu.edu> wrote:
>>bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Distionary:
One of the several usages of:
objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as
perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices,
or interpretations.
quantitative: of, relating to, or expressible in terms of quantity.
measure: to estimate or appraise by a criterion <~s his skill against
his rival>
E-i briddho bayesh-e e shob shabdotattwik chhelemanushi ki ar poshai!
Dosher modhye ami ekti objective criterion cheyechhilam.
>> You should have said the yes in capitals. What better way to prove
>> a point without providing examples to support it?
>
>I did provide examples. Maybe you should consider a psychometry to
>have your short-term memory retention tested?
Please, don't get so excited. It scares me. Do you rememeber what you
were (supposed to be) providing examples for?
Let me refresh your mind.
SB>A measure of Tagore's continued influence on the Bengali mind is
SB>the way every post-Tagore writer has had to deal with his presence
AS> Every!?
SB>Yes. Just as anyone trying to write verse drama in English even today
SB>has to deal with the ghost of Shakespeare.
AS> You should have said the yes in capitals. What better way to prove
AS> a point without providing examples to support it?
You used less than 10 examples to extrapolate to the _every_.
Shouting, I reiterate, would have been easier for both of us,
as I get scared easily, but have problems accepting irrational
extrapolations.
>>>Note the presence of Manibhushan Bhattacharya and Joy Goswami in the
>>>list I provided for your benefit. Both are post-"Krittibas" by a long shot.
>>
>> And, you still haven't provided any examples beyond Shottorer dashak.
>> And, we are in the 90's.
>
>Both Manibhushan Bhattacharyya and Joy Goswami are living and active
>in the 90's.
Sayanbabu, apnar bodhhoi bhalo kare jana nei shottorer dashak-er
kobi, ashir dashak-er kobi etc. balte ki bojhai. Etar mane holo
kon dashak-e kobi likhte shuru karechhen. Tarpar tini shara jiban
dhare likhe jete paren, kintu tar dashak ar paltai na.
Apnar logic anujayi, Krittibas-er kobirao to ekhono bahal tobiyat-e
likhe jachchen, shudhu tader example dilei to hoi, abar MB-babuke
dhore tanatani keno?
Apni ki ashi kimba nobbui-er karur lekha parechhen?
>I regret that I had to make another post on this topic. This was
>because I felt that this was necessary to correct the misrepresentations
>contained in Apratim Sarkar's posting.
Amar ar ekti matra proshno: 'Ar kotodure niye jabe more ...'?
>-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil DasGupta
: In article <3kalb6$i...@news.bu.edu>,
: Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
: >
: >1) How much of the transition from `shadhu' to `cholit' can be regarded
: >as due to RT's influence? The `cholit bhasha' was indeed the language
: >that was actually spoken. Wasn't it's acceptance in literature
: >inevitable?
: >
: I agree that the acceptance of _chalit_ was historically inevitable,
: but the fact that Tagore lent his considerable reputation in favour
: of _chalit_ certainly hastened the transition.
: establish itself automatically as a literary language unless there
: is a major figure supporting that transformation. For example,
: Sanskrit had long ceased to be a language of the people but still
: continued to be a literary language until the influence of the
: Buddha (who chose to preach in Pali) led to a flurry of literary
: activity in Pali and Prakrit. Similarly, English made the transition
: into a literary language supplanting Latin only when Chaucer started
: using it. So did Italian when Dante, who had a solid reputation as
: a writer writing in Latin, chose to use the vernacular for the
: _Commedia_ .
Quite true. Although the the pace with which changes in th society are
reflected in the literature increased dramatically after the invention
of the printing press and subsequent developments in thee technology of
book making and distribution.
: >2) Pramathanath Chowdhury for one wrote in lucid `cholit' even when RT
: >was struggling to convert. Are we to regard his influence on Bengali to
: >be as much, greater or less compared to RT?
: >
: Pramatha Chowdhury did have Tagore's backing and active patronage,
: some of it parochial (because he was related to Tagore by marriage)
: and because Tagore was a frequent contributor to the magazine he was
: associated with.
Did that help him find his language of expression? Or are you saying
that RTs patronage merely helped sell his books?
: >I find the Rabindrik way of writing verse quite indistinguishable from
: >some earlier poets like say Biharilal.
: This may have been true of Tagore's earlier writings such as _Sandhyasangeet_,
: _Prabhatsangeet_ or the play _Bisarjan_. But I find it hard to believe that
: you find any of Tagore's work starting from the _Manashi_/_Sonar Tari_ period
: to be indistinguishable from Biharilal Chakrabarty .
The work is distinguishable because of a-priori knowldge. The style is
exactly the same. I have no difficulty in recognising the same RT in
Prabhatsangeet and in Shonar tori, despite RT's own claim of a phase
transition somewhere in between.
: Tagore himself has written that Biharilal influenced him in hisearly years.
: Kadambari Debi, an early influence on Tagore, was a great admirer of Biharilal.
: But this influence is discernible mostly in Tagore's juvenilia.
Where doees this juvenalia end and the mature poetry begin?
In particular, can you discern a stylistic difference between , say:
Aji e probhat-e robir kor ...
and
ThNai nai thNai nai choto she tori ...
: As for Vidyapati, I am assuming that you are refering to _Bhanu Singher
: Padabali_. That was meant as a conscious imitation of the Vaishnava poets
: (and perhaps also partially intended as a spoof). In any event, it was
: not much more than a five-finger exercise.
Imitation certainly. Spoof, very unlikely.
: I personally think that more than anyone else, it was the English romantic
: poets who influenced Tagore most : Shelley, Keats and Wordsworth. Tagore
: himself translated several poems by the English romantics in his youth
: into Bengali.
The point is, if Keats was RT's inspiration, Baudlaire was Buddhaev
Bose's, Rimbaud Sharat Mukhopadhdhay's and so on. Thmatically Rt's
successors were as far away from him as the circa 1950 from 1850.
RT's influence can be appreciable only in the language, diction and style.
These he could not have picked up from Keats.
: >And if originality
: >of style abounded so much among other writers of RT's era (so much so
: >that RT himself emulated them), why must we believe that there has been
: >a dearth of the same in the post RT period?
: There hasn't been any dearth of original or talented writers in the post-Tagore
: period. In my opinion, Bengali literature in the thirties, forties and fifties
: can compare favorably with the best in the world at any time. ( I would like
: to single out Jibanananda Das, Samar Sen and Bishnu De, my particular
: favorites). I posit that it was the path-breaking and titanic presence of
: Tagore that made the efflorescence of so much talent in so short a time
: possible (including the fact that some of the last-named produced their
: best work while reacting against Tagore). Last but not the least, Tagore
: helped to create an informed, literate and discerning Bengali readership
: who would sustain (intellectually if not financially) the writers who came
: after him.
Was RT rreacting against Vidyapati at any stage?
Poetry after Rt is influenced by RT if it resembles RT's style. If it
does not then too it is influenced by RT because it is a reaction
against his style. There may be some truth in what you think (precisely
what I was saying on the net two months ago). But it's very hard to
state that objectively : an indication that we might be overestimating
our case.
I am giving it a serious second thought. Think of mMy earlier post as an
invitation to all netters to do the same.
Indranil.
Sudeshna Das
>
>|> In article <3jvls0$j...@news.bu.edu>, Sudeshna Das <sude...@acs3.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>|> > Even if this is true, and I believe that to make it true we
>|> > must first (re)define education, this just shows the
>|> > irrational thought process of WBHS graders while granting
>|> > maximum points to the (so-called) Rabindrik style.
>|>
>
>I don't think that there is any way you can write in Bangla
>now and be called "rabindrik". It is impossible to find
>the influence of Rabindranath at that level 50 years after
>his death. Anybody who directly imitates Rabindranath will
>be labelled archaic or juvenile or be charged with plagiarism.
I was talking of WBHS. Have you seen the language used in the
more popular note books, used by so many, and in the coaching
classes, and the points that such language attracts? In fact,
it is not Rabindrik, rather dates even back. However, that is
totally irrelevant to the present discussion, let's just
forget this issue, the rest of Somakbabu's post is much more
interesting.
>In any literature, generations following a major figure thrive by
>striving to depart from his/her direct influence.
Why is it, then, that only in 'Jhara Palak' can we see a direct
RT-influence on Jibanananda? I failed to find a thematic and/or
philosophical influence starting from 'Dhushar Pandulipi' and
practically no stylisitic influence starting from 'Banalata Sen'.
By 'Mahaprithivi'and 'Shatti Tarar Timir' JD had firmly established
his own style. Examples to the contrary are most welcome, more so
if they are from one of JD's memorable poems, and not one which
simply everybody has forgotten. For, evidently, that didn't succeed
as a poem. Also, it would save me the trouble of asking for an
explanation why it should be considered to be Rt-influence if that is
already provided.
In fact RT's ishwarchetana, one of the most important driving factors
for RT, is totally lacking in JD, and off-hand I cannot recall any
single poem by JD on that topic. (Doesn't mean there are none, but
very few, and perhpas not a single memorable ones). The surrealism of
'STT' is JD's own, not borrowed from RT.
>So to look
>for the influence of a unique figure in literature, you don't go around
>looking for imitators.
Absolutely. They are the first one's to perish. That happened
with Sajani Kanta's school of poets, Kumud Ranjan Mallick,
Kalidas ray, Jotin Bagchi et al. They were more influenced by
Katha o Kahini than by anything else, and simply perished.
But, the one's who came out of RT influence like JD and Amiyo
Chakrabarty (whose ishwar used to smoke an expensive cigarette
and dNaatashudhdha ranga palangshaak used to decorate whose
poems), I believe, are the ones that survived. That happened when RT
was still alive. In fact, he had problems accepting 'Dhushar
Pandulipi'.
>Shombhu Mitra was a revolution in
>Bangla Theatre, many Bohurupi actors/actresses
>are still directly influenced
>by him, but his lasting contribution will not be felt in the obvious
>mannerisms, but in the way he sought to adapt Ibsen to the Bangla stage,
>and how he made Rabindranath's surreal plays seem natural on stage.
No comments, as my knowledge on this topic is very limited.
>Bangla Literature in the 1990s is as much dependent on Rabindranath
>as Russian literature was on Pushkin or German
>literature was on Goethe in the late 19th century.
It is here that I ask for some examples. In fact, I would even like
to revise my opinion (I am working on an essay on exactly this
same topic) and claim that starting from the 60's poets, Bengali
literature stopped having any direct influence of Tagore. Instead,
the main poets who started having influence on the 60's poets were
from the 30's and 50's, Jibanananda and Sunil/Shakti, also Buddhadeb
Basu come to mind. Of course, there continues to be an indirect
influence due to the direct influence of Tagore on the 30's poets,
but, one, we can then go back even further, and claim Biharilal
influence on 60's literature, due to Biharilal influence on RT, and
two, if it is claimed that it was RT's original and not the
Biharilal-influenced works that influenced the 30's poets, it was the
individuality of JD that influenced the 50's and 60's poets, not
the Tagore-influenced 'Jhara Palak'.
Please note that my comment just centers around Bengali literature,
not Russian or German.
>Rabindranath is more to Bangla
>than what Shakespeare was to English Literature,
>because
>(a) in English there have been many stalwarts in the 3.5
>centuries after him, and
This would have been true with Bengali literature in the 30's.
It is not true any more. One Jibanananda, one Amiyo Chakrabarti,
one Bishnu Dey. The three Banerjees in prose. And Satinath Bhaduri.
Partially Samaresh Basu. They may not be stalwarts of the stature
of RT as far as versetility goes, but the first 6, IMHO, can easily
compete with RT in their respective fields. Only Bibhutibhushan in
short stories, though, IMHO. Even though they didn't get the Nobel.
It is due to the presence of these more recent stalwarts, I
believe, that Bengali literature in the 90's has no direct RT
influence. Note, that RT was also influenced by then contemporary
poets like Biharilal at home, and Shelly and Keats outside, not, by,
say M.M. Dutt or Shakespeare, equally strong, but a poet of the past.
>(b) Rabindranath presided over the crucial
>phase when "Cholit" replaced "Shadhu" in Bangla literature.
>Remember, Bangla is one of very few languages that
>has shown classic diglossic behaviour,
>and the only one where literature has initiated the move towards
>an unified form. (Hope the Greeks could follow the example
>set by Bangla!)
While RT was indeed the _major_, and perhaps the only major,
contemporary author to make the switch, the move was initiated by
Pramatha Choudhuri in Shabuj Patra. PC was actively writing in
cholit bangla even before RT. I do acknowledge RT's contributions,
but they were mostly, what should I say, political, as it served
as a great influence, and not philosophical. The philosophy was PC's.
We seem to forget about this while discussing the sadhu->cholit
transformation. Besides, Tekchaand Thakur (PyariChaand Mitra) and
Kaliprosonno Simha had already laid the foundations in Alaler
Gharer Dulal and Hutom P(n)yachar Naksha respectively.
>20 th c English poetry is more directly influenced by people by Eliot,
>Pound, Yeats or even cummings or Sandburg than by Shakespeare, Milton or
>Chaucer, but the modern masters have stood on the shoulders of giants.
>You will find more of Rilke and Stefan George in 20th century
>German poetry than shades of Goethe and Schiller.
That, essentially, was my point as well. That, in the 20th century,
the direct influence is more of Rilke and less of Goethe and/or
Schiller. And the same is the case for Bengal in the 90's, 5 years
from the 21st century. That RT is a poet of the past, like Goethe
in Germany. This is not to question the greatness of either.
>To say that the short story has descended from Gogol's
>"The Overcoat" does not mean that every short story has to
>have an overcoat in it.
It also means that every short story with an overcoat in it,
doesn't necessarily show a Gogol-influence. But, it seems that
RT-influence on Bengali literature is sometimes measured along
these lines. Even the name Rabindranath is enough to show RT
influence. Hence, though the poems of 'Naam rekhechi komol gandhar'
are no where close to RT's school, some claim that it shows the
sublime influence of Tagore on BD. Even the use of such phrases like
'Shedin Damini bujhi balechhilo, mitilo na shaadh ...', IMO, are
inadequate to show RT-influence. Bishnu Dey, BTW, I believe is the
only poet in the 30's who struggled the least to get out of
RT-influence.
How to measure RT influence, then? Why not do it the same way as RT?
He found the poems of Tanhi by Sudhindranath Dutta to be so influenced
by him, that he said that to comment on the poems of Tanhi is like
commenting on one's own poetry. Sudhin Dutta continued to have
RT-influence throghout his career, and even at the very end of his
career he was writing:
'Tomar jogya gaan birachiba bale
Bashechhi bijane Naba neepabane
Puspita trinidale.
Sharater shona <.> gagane gagane ...' etc. etc.
Not an imitation, but one can very clearly hear the voice of RT
in the background.
And, a comparative study of 'Jhara Palaak' and 'Dhushar Pandulipi'
by Jibanananda Das, written within a span of 10 years, the first
approved by RT, and second he failed to associate with, should be
adequate in making this distinction clearer. But let me reserve
that for my essay.
> Somak Raychaudhury
Thank you for a very enjoyable post.
Regards,
Apra.
Sudeshna Das
> If you do not think that the content of JD's poetry didn't change
> between Jhara Palak and STT,
>
> 1> I am surprised.
> 2> I would like to request you to read JD again. I know that
> he is one of your most favourite poets.
> 3> Thanks for mentioning this angle, as I will include examples
> showing a change in content in my essay.
Might as well provide one example now. 'Bodh'. I do not think
that there is _any_ poem similar to this one from 'Dhushar
Pandulipi' in 'Jhara Palak'. (Examples to the contrary etc. etc.
...)
>>No one ``grows out'' of an influence, one just learns to internalise
>>and assimilate that influence and eventually find one's own poetic
>>voice. The influence, internalised and assimilated, remains a part
>>of one's intellectual and emotional apparatus.
>
> I refuse to play with words (and descend into another bitter
> flamefest).
>
> Of course RT remained a 'part of ...' for both JD and AC. My
|
|
but still they 'grew out' of RT influence |
and created their own styles. <-------+
> claim is that he stopped _being_ a part (hence the question of
> remaining doesn't arise) from the 60's onwards, unless one considers
> second hand influence, which will bring us to Biharilal.
Another correction! The result of too hurried postings. No more
posts from me on this topic till next weekend.
Regards,
Apra.
sayan bhattacharyya
>>
>>Perhaps there wasn't a drastic transformation in terms of form and style
>>(certainly not anything as drastic as _Jhara Palak_ --> _Shatti Tarar
>>Timir_ ) . I was however thinking more in terms of content rather than in
>>terms of form or style.
>
> If you do not think that the content of JD's poetry didn't change
> between Jhara Palak and STT,
>
> 1> I am surprised.
Once again, you haven't read carefully what I wrote above. Let me repeat.
I wrote : "perhaps there wasn't a drastic transformation in terms of form
and style [in Tagore's writing ] (certainly not anything as drastic as
_Jhara Palak_ --> _Satti Tarar Timir_)."
In other words, I said that (1) there was a drastic transformation in
form and style in Dash's poetry from _Jhara Palak_ to _Satti Tarar Timir_
and (2) I would (perhaps) agree that there wasn't such a drastic change
in form and style in Tagore's poetry from _Prabhatsangeet_ to _Manasi_/
_Sonar Tari_.
Then I said : "I was however thinking more in terms of content."
In other words, even though (perhaps) Tagore's form and style did
not change that much, his _content_ did change.
From this, you extrapolated to conclude (heaven knows why) that I said
that there was no change in content in *Dash's* writing. I said nothing of
the sort.
I understand that you cannot make "late night posts" without committing
writing errors. Now it seems to me that you cannot post without making
reading errors as well.
> I refuse to play with words.
Good idea. You should stick to playing with those punctuation marks
instead.
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
partha
Nothing just falls of from the blue sky. The formation of JD as a surreal and
romantic poet (perhaps only one of that kind in bengal) was a
product of his time, and people like RT (for the records, there may be others,
may be some who are not even bengalis that are responsible for JD s
manifestation) prepared the ground for such a mutation, in the same
way predecessors of RT are responsible for the rise of RT.
Can we imagine a JD in the days of Vidyasagar?
Regards
--partha
Sudeshna Das
>In article <3kdv82$5...@news.bu.edu>, Sudeshna Das <sude...@acs3.bu.edu> wrote:
>I was just pointing out that the fact
>that Tagore lent his considerable reputation in favor of chalit made the
>transition more acceptable and hence smoother.
The idea still remains Pramatha Choudhury's. However, due to
a subliminal spirit of idol worship for Tagore, even educated
people tend to forget PC when the sadhu->cholit issue is brought
up, and (often) give _all_ the credit to RT.
Which was what I was trying to point out.
>> There was a gradual transformation, yes, but the distinction was
>> no where as clear as that of 'Jhara Palak' and 'Shatti Tarar Timir'
>> for Jibanananda.
>
>Perhaps there wasn't a drastic transformation in terms of form and style
>(certainly not anything as drastic as _Jhara Palak_ --> _Shatti Tarar
>Timir_ ) . I was however thinking more in terms of content rather than in
>terms of form or style.
If you do not think that the content of JD's poetry didn't change
between Jhara Palak and STT,
1> I am surprised.
2> I would like to request you to read JD again. I know that
he is one of your most favourite poets.
3> Thanks for mentioning this angle, as I will include examples
showing a change in content in my essay.
>> So he grew out of that influence, right? Would you acknowledge
>> that Jibanananda and Amiyo Chakrabarty did the same?
>>
>
>No one ``grows out'' of an influence, one just learns to internalise
>and assimilate that influence and eventually find one's own poetic
>voice. The influence, internalised and assimilated, remains a part
>of one's intellectual and emotional apparatus.
I refuse to play with words (and descend into another bitter
flamefest).
Of course RT remained a 'part of ...' for both JD and AC. My
claim is that he stopped _being_ a part (hence the question of
remaining doesn't arise) from the 60's onwards, unless one considers
second hand influence, which will bring us to Biharilal.
>>>As for Vidyapati, I am assuming that you are refering to _Bhanu Singher
>>>Padabali_. That was meant as a conscious imitation of the Vaishnava poets
>>>(and perhaps also partially intended as a spoof). In any event, it was
>>>not much more than a five-finger exercise.
>>
>> Why is it, then, that it is only a five-finger exercise when RT is
>> the author. Would you say the same about 'Jhara Palak' and/or 'Upahar'?
>>
>
>The reason I consider _Bhanu Singher Padabali_ a mere five finger exercise
>is that it was written in a language which arguably wasn't Bengali at all.
>Personally I feel that these poems are similar in intention and scope
>to the poems T.S. Eliot wrote in his early youth in French. It was not
>natural for a writer in late-19th century Calcutta to write in Brajabuli.
Considering the high esteem with which Boishnab Padabali was held
in the mid 19th century in Bengal, I believe that there can be
different opinions on this issue.
>None of the other examples you cited were written in an artificial language.
True. But what has artificiality got to do with a 'five-finger
exercise'? (If you think that this may lead to a war over words,
please note my inability to participate, and accept my apologies.)
>> The influence of Samar Sen is, IMHO, overemphasized in the history
>> of the Bengali literature.
>>
>
>It is true that Samar Sen did not leave a large body of work (and somewhat
>inexplicably gave up writing poetry very early). However, he will have
>to be remembered firstly because what he did write was extremely good
>(subjective opinion) and secondly because he was the first person in whose
>work we first find the true rhythm of Bengali prose (_gadya_ ) manifest
>itself in poetry. He was the first person to write a sucessful _gadya-kobita_
>(the ones by Tagore, in spite of many excellent qualities, do not possess
>the authentic rhythm of Bengali spoken prose, at least to my ears).
I agree with both your points. And reiterate my opinion, which is
subjective. Let's drop this topic, I don't think that it is central to
the debate.
>> In fact, that readership was soon substituted by the readership
>> of Kallol and Kali-Kalam, who, incidentally, had more respect
>> for RT than, say, BuBa, and/or Jibanananda.
>>
>
>True, but my point was that had there not been an informed readership
>there would have been even more lack of acceptance. The generation of
>"Kallol" after all had grown up reading Tagore.
My only point is that everything shouldn't be attributed,
directly or indirectly, to the positive influence of reading RT
literature, and liking or hating it. That is akin, at least to me,
to idol worship. We should learn to give people the due respects
for their individual and original contributions. Be it in writing,
be it in publishing a little magazine.
>I wasn't able to make sense of your last sentence above. As far as I
>remember Dash sent "Jhara Palak" to Tagore soliciting comments when
>it was first published. (This was the occasion when Tagore called
>Dash's poetry "chitraroopomoy"). Buddhadeb Bose was an occasional
>visitor to Jorasanko and Tagore had a good deal of affection for
>him. I find your statement inexplicable.
You are right. I missed a 'for'. It should have been:
say, for BuBa ...
It was a late night post, and while I posted a followup to correct
one error, I missed this one. Thanks for pointing it out.
>-Sayan.
Regards,
Apra.
Debarag Banerjee
(partha) writes:
Maybe a near Dada/Surrealist like JD was impossible in the days of Vidyasagar,
but definitely it was a possibility in the late '20s and '30s. Compared to
literatures in most other Indian languages (except Marathi maybe) Bengali
colonial and post-colonial literature had always looked at the west for its
ideas and inspiration. Hence, it is a little surprising that the huge wave of
Surrealism and Dadaism that swept Europe during the inter-War years left Bengal
almost untouched. Of course, there were a few half-hearted attempts (Sukumar
Roy & Nonsense Club etc.) but by and large there had been almost no influence
of these revolutionary ideas in the art/literature in Bengal. I have a strong
suspicion that this is mainly due the eclipsing effect of Rabindranath. In spite
of his relative flexibilty RT remained a poet of the older genre, unable to
assimilate the new. And being a Nobel laureate and almost a cult figure, his
words and ideas came to be the guiding principle of Bengali literature at that
time. Hence no surrealism and no dadaism in Bengali literature.
[Anybody keeping count of these $0.02s trickling into this thread?]
--
Debarag Banerjee | Making mountains out of molehills?
|
dban...@bme.utmem.edu | Call 1-800-BIG-BANG
Sudeshna Das
>Sudeshna Das <sude...@acs3.bu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>Perhaps there wasn't a drastic transformation in terms of form and style
>>>(certainly not anything as drastic as _Jhara Palak_ --> _Shatti Tarar
>>>Timir_ ) . I was however thinking more in terms of content rather than in
>>>terms of form or style.
>>
>> If you do not think that the content of JD's poetry didn't change
>> between Jhara Palak and STT,
>>
>> 1> I am surprised.
>
>Once again, you haven't read carefully what I wrote above. Let me repeat.
>I wrote : "perhaps there wasn't a drastic transformation in terms of form
>and style [in Tagore's writing ] (certainly not anything as drastic as
>_Jhara Palak_ --> _Satti Tarar Timir_)."
>
>In other words, I said that (1) there was a drastic transformation in
>form and style in Dash's poetry from _Jhara Palak_ to _Satti Tarar Timir_
>and (2) I would (perhaps) agree that there wasn't such a drastic change
>in form and style in Tagore's poetry from _Prabhatsangeet_ to _Manasi_/
>_Sonar Tari_.
>
>Then I said : "I was however thinking more in terms of content."
>
>In other words, even though (perhaps) Tagore's form and style did
>not change that much, his _content_ did change.
>
>From this, you extrapolated to conclude (heaven knows why) that I said
>that there was no change in content in *Dash's* writing. I said nothing of
>the sort.
Thanks for the (detailed) explanation!
I did not, however, conclude that you said (blah blah ... whatsoever).
What I simply said was, _if_ you think that the content of JD's poems
didn't change between JP and STT, please reconsider. Period.
Now, _if_ you _do_ think that JD's writings changed in style, form (which
you have already agreed to), _as well as contents_ (which was my question),
and if you also grant me that these parameters suffice to value JD's poetry,
or any poetry for that matter, like, say, Amiyobabu's, then I can proceed
with _my_ argument, which, if you recall, were aimed at showing several
post-RT writer's, e.g., JD's, independence from RT's influence, and the
complete lack of RT-influence on several others.
(I understand that you have a keen interest in showing RT's independence
from Biharilal. While I watch that debate with interest I'll leave that
point, at this moment, for you and IDG to discuss. (If and) when you
respond to IDG's last post on that thread, that is.
Please note, that while it _may be_ your perception that subliminal
influences of one poet on another are subjective issues and the winning
of the Biharilal-RT argument might jeopardise the prospects of the RT-JD
match, I have always stated that subliminal influences are not my domain
and objective analysis of JD's independence from RT is not connected,
IMHO, to RT's growing out of Biharilal's influence, which, to me is
interesting merely from a historical point of view as far as this debate goes.
This followup, IMHO, is not an appropriate place to discuss this objective
comparison fully. I'll come back to that, as I have promised, in a later
post, which is almost ready.)
Let me finish by asking one straight question. _If_ you _do_ agree that STT
(as well as many other later-day JD poem collections) differ from (RT-
influenced) JP very much, how do you evaluate RT's subliminal influence
on the mature JD? You will, perhaps, recall your claim of this subliminal
influence on _every_ post-RT writer, which, IMHO, needs a _single_
counterexample to be negated. I also understand from your Biharilal-RT
argument that you do differenciate between influences on a poet before and
after his/her maturity.
>I understand that you cannot make "late night posts" without committing
>writing errors. Now it seems to me that you cannot post without making
>reading errors as well.
Unless I am making a reading error here, this part of the message has
been encrypted beyond my deciphering skills.
I am not complaining, though. So far most of my arguments have been ignored
by Sayanbabu. In this post (it seems that) he has at least accepted that JD's
writing did change drastically between JP and STT, in form, style and
content. (Please correct me if I have made a reading error here.)
I am happy to make a small progress!
>> I refuse to play with words.
>
>Good idea. You should stick to playing with those punctuation marks
>instead.
??
!
!!!!
:-) :-)
>-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Regards,
Apra.
Apratim Sarkar
>Nothing just falls of from the blue sky. The formation of JD as a surreal and
>romantic poet (perhaps only one of that kind in bengal) was a
>product of his time, and people like RT (for the records, there may be
>others,
>may be some who are not even bengalis that are responsible for JD s
>manifestation) prepared the ground for such a mutation,
Please see the bottom of the text for comments on this.
>in the same
>way predecessors of RT are responsible for the rise of RT.
My point is that the 30's and 50's poets, _and not RT_, are
responsible for the development of the 60's poets onwards. But,
in the minds of a few 'educated' gentlemen, the clock seems to
have stopped at baishe Sraban, and (it seems that) they continue
to live in RT's times, and hence interpret 90's literature as
RT-influenced.
Let's take the example of two young poets of the 70's who seem to
have gained some popularity. Subodh Sarkar and Mallika Sengupta.
Sunil Ganguly-influence is quite clear in their works. Sunil Ganguly
himself was more influenced by Buddhadeb Basu and Samar Sen than RT.
While Buddhadeb Basu remained influenced by RT throughout his career,
there was a Bodlaire' influence as well on him (and some other
Western poets), and Samar Sen was the culmination of RT-antithesis
(which some interpret as an RT-influence, which I personally consider
to be the universal set syndrome, akin to what IDG has already pointed
out, when asking Sayanbabu whether he considers RT to be a reaction
to Bidyapati).
That is, it needs (upto) a negation of the third-hand influence to
prove RT-influence on these poets. It is easier to show Bidyasagar
influence on these two poets, using Barna Porichaya.
>Can we imagine a JD in the days of Vidyasagar?
When Dhushar Pandulipi was published, Shajani Kanta et. al. expressed
similar incredulity. They couldn't imagine a JD in the days of RT.
Only yesterday, when talking about 'Bodh', IDG mentioned to me what
the Shonibabr-er Chithi group referred to it as, 'God'.
Neither could RT himself. He had problems identifying himself with
JD's poetry from DP onwards. 60 years down the line, with the
success of JD already history, we are not only claiming that JD was
possible only in the post-RT days, but that RT actually prepared the
grounds for JD! The contemporary blind RT-worship by the SC group and
their opposition to anything a-Rabindrik (which, I believe, was quite
infeasible without RT's passive approval) made JD's literary life
quite difficult (which he handled like a gentleman, and once he told
Bani Ray, 'Sajani babu-ke balben emni bhabei jeno tini amar prochar
karen.') and it was the Kallol group (and later Kobita), essentially
BuBa that supported him at that period. Isn't is too easy to forget
their contributions and give all the credit to RT!? (Like forgetting
Pramatha Choudhury in the sadhu->cholit issue.)
To claim that RT paved the ground for JD is, IMHO, quite insulting
not only to the originality of JD, but to his difficult literary
career as well.
>Regards
>
>--partha
Regards,
Apra.
sayan bhattacharyya
Apratim Sarkar <asa...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Let's take the example of two young poets of the 70's who seem to
> have gained some popularity. Subodh Sarkar and Mallika Sengupta.
I have read both Subodh Sarkar and Mallika Sengupta off and on in the pages
of _Desh_ magazine. I find both of them to be quite bad poets (very subjective
opinion again). For the record, I think that very little good poetry was
written by the poets who started to write in the seventies and eighties
(yes, I am unabashedly old-fashioned) and that there have been no outstanding
poets after the Krittibas/Shotobhisha generation.
The really good poetry
that is being written in our time is still being written by survivors from
the older generations like Shankha Ghosh. I consider the greatest poetry
that was written in the last ten years to have been written by a relatively
unknown older poet called Rabindra Biswas whose work sends shivers down my
spine.
The relative aridity of the younger generaion of poets, though regretable,
should not cause undue worry. Poetry is a fickle mistress, and would not
yield equally to all generations of poets.In the last couple of decades
the Bengali muse has found voice instead in other arts like the theater
and the cinema which have seen the emergence of several talented young
people, rather than in poetry.
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
P.S. I reserve comment about Joy Goswami. I like some of his work but I
think he has been hyped by a particular publishing group unduly.
Sudeshna Das
>In article <3kkmgu$5...@dcsun4.us.oracle.com>,
>Apratim Sarkar <asa...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let's take the example of two young poets of the 70's who seem to
>> have gained some popularity. Subodh Sarkar and Mallika Sengupta.
>
>I have read both Subodh Sarkar and Mallika Sengupta off and on in the pages
>of _Desh_ magazine. I find both of them to be quite bad poets (very subjective
>opinion again).
I see that you have not put forward any logic to claim RT-influence
on either SS or MS. Am I to gather that you do not dispute the lack
of RT-influence on the above two poets, which was what I was trying
to prove, and which, I think, will effectively debunk your theory
that RT influenced _every_ single Bengali poet after him?
I am assuming here that you understand that a subjective opinion
about whether a poet is _quite bad_ or good has no connection
whatsoever to an objective debate discussing whether they are
RT-influenced or not.
>[Rest of the post discussing the merits of Bengali literature in the 80's
>and 90's, deleted.]
>-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Regards,
Apra.
sayan bhattacharyya
>>>
> I see that you have not put forward any logic to claim RT-influence
> on either SS or MS. Am I to gather that you do not dispute the lack
> of RT-influence on the above two poets, which was what I was trying
> to prove, and which, I think, will effectively debunk your theory
> that RT influenced _every_ single Bengali poet after him?
>
> I am assuming here that you understand that a subjective opinion
> about whether a poet is _quite bad_ or good has no connection
> whatsoever to an objective debate discussing whether they are
> RT-influenced or not.
>
This posting of mine wasn't intended as part of the ongoing debate
about Tagore. I wasn't replying to your arguments; I was initiating
a separate discussion. It was intended as a separate comment about the state
of Bengali literature in the eighties and nineties. Note that this is
why I had changed the `subject' field in the header to `the eighties
and nineties' from `tagore', since this posting was not about Tagore.
That being the case, there wasn't any obligation on me to either claim
or disclaim anything.
Or are you expecting that from now on any and
every post made on soc.culture.bengali must be tagged with an obligatory
claimer or disclaimer about the influence of Tagore on the subject of
the post ?
To answer your question (even at the cost of repetition) : to the extent
that Tagore forms a large part of the cultural substrate of the Bengali,
no poet writing in Bengali can escape his influence. Neither good poets
nor the bad are exceptions to this rule.
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Indranil DasGupta
Apra wwas not the only oneto have misread your inteentions then. The
discussion on RT - feminismm and related matters have meandered through
sevral threads, perhaps switching threads is no longer a clear
indicator of your intentions, especially when you quote from a posting
from an earlier thread.
I have not had the opportunity of reading your favourite poet's spine
shiverers. Will be grateful if you post a few of them. Never too late
to learn. Always dig advnture.
Indranil.
partha
> My point is that the 30's and 50's poets, _and not RT_, are
> responsible for the development of the 60's poets onwards. But,
> in the minds of a few 'educated' gentlemen, the clock seems to
> have stopped at baishe Sraban, and (it seems that) they continue
> to live in RT's times, and hence interpret 90's literature as
> RT-influenced.
I think I stated in my post clearly that there are others who might have
influenced JD, including RT. But if you insist that RT was not one of them and
had no influence whatsoever on JDs manifestation, fine, that is your opinion,
and in this case our opinions differ.
> It is easier to show Bidyasagar influence on these two poets,
> using Barna Porichaya.
Of course, as long as some is not writing bengali literature in alchiki script.
We have to accept the fact that we learnt this language from our parents
as well as from the pages of barna-parichay (Vidyasagar), sahajpath (RT),
kisholoy (nice collections put up by education dept of the then WB govt, i
forgot when it was first published.. in the 60s? 50s? or even before?), or
those nice books/booklets by hashirashi devi, sukhalata rao, jogindra nath
sarkar and the shishu sahitya samsad!
> Neither could RT himself. He had problems identifying himself with
> JD's poetry from DP onwards. 60 years down the line, with the
> success of JD already history, we are not only claiming that JD was
> possible only in the post-RT days, but that RT actually prepared the
> grounds for JD!
See my comment above (RT was not alone). In addition:
By preparing the ground and asking to imagine if a JD was possible in the days
of Vidyasagar I meant the maturity and ability to understand and accept JD s
work by the bengalis also. RT (and other stalwarts) filled up a huge vacuum
in bengali literature that was there between 'jol poRe pata noRe' to
'kishoree r chaal dhoa bhije haath' er gondho. Even today I doubt how much
of common bengali population would understand JD or even RT properly. RT
himself acknowledged the fact that he is waiting for some poet who is
'matir kacha kachi' to come and JD, IMHO is not the proverbial one.
It takes different kinds of sophistication to understand either of them.
> To claim that RT paved the ground for JD is, IMHO, quite insulting
> not only to the originality of JD, but to his difficult literary
> career as well.
JD and RT both are my favorit poets and I do not have any intention to insult
either of them. There is no question of JD s originality (as far as bengali
lit is concerned - recall I said perhaps he is the only one of his kind
in Bengal).
Contrary to the popular opinion, RT s (literary and otherwise) life was not
easy either.
Regards
--partha
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3kalb6$i...@news.bu.edu>,
>: Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>I am giving it a serious second thought. Think of mMy earlier post as an
>invitation to all netters to do the same.
>
Good idea. And I take this opportunity to suggest that interested
netters look up a collection of essays by Buddhadeb Bose on
*exactly* the same topics in a book called "Sanga, Ni:sangata,
Rabindranath". BB gives lots of examples of RT's contributions
towards the basic elements (e.g. chhanda) of poetry.
BB also mentions somewhere that it is difficult to cite a
suitably small subset of his work as representative of the very
best of his total work. I guess someone (Raghu?) was asked to
do this in this thread.
BB's articles were written in the early sixties and may
not therefore be applicable for the current discussion on the ninety's
literature. BB would have supported Sayan's views, IMO.
Shubhechha -
- samir
>Indranil.
Sudeshna Das
>This posting of mine wasn't intended as part of the ongoing debate
>about Tagore. I wasn't replying to your arguments; I was initiating
>a separate discussion. It was intended as a separate comment about the state
>of Bengali literature in the eighties and nineties. Note that this is
>why I had changed the `subject' field in the header to `the eighties
>and nineties' from `tagore', since this posting was not about Tagore.
>That being the case, there wasn't any obligation on me to either claim
>or disclaim anything.
Whatever. I am not a thought reader. Your intentions were
not clear from your post at all. I am sure that other readers
have been confused as well. To humor you, I am setting the
subject back to Tagore and leaving the other thread for the
discussion that you intended to start.
>Or are you expecting that from now on any and
>every post made on soc.culture.bengali must be tagged with an obligatory
>claimer or disclaimer about the influence of Tagore on the subject of
>the post ?
Ki byapar, Sayanbabu? Take it easy. You seem to be too stressed
over this simple matter. Perhaps you should take a break from SCB?
RT-influence on 90's poets is no big deal. Just relax.
>To answer your question (even at the cost of repetition) : to the extent
>that Tagore forms a large part of the cultural substrate of the Bengali,
>no poet writing in Bengali can escape his influence. Neither good poets
>nor the bad are exceptions to this rule.
*sigh*
Objective debate-ti apnake ar shekhate parbo bole mone hochche na
Sayanbabu. Do you realize that it is just a subjective opinion on
your part that 'to the extent .... influence.'? Do you care to
provide _any_ example to prove your point?
The questions that come to mind:
1. To what extent? Why is it, then, that Rabindra-sangeet-er
anurodh-er ashor has lost a lot of ground to Star TV, and is
steadily losing ground every day? (Note, that Rabindra Sangeet
is the most popular of all art forms by Tagore. His stories and
poems are no where as popular, let alone his novels, dramas and
essays.)
2. 'No' poet is a point which is (almost) impossible to prove. One
needs just one single counterexample to disprove it. Why are you
trying to make _your own_ point so hard to prove?
3. You haven't yet responded to my two questions, one about the
mature JD, the other about Subodh and Mallika, which, IMHO, debunks
your _no poet_ theory. Are you going to respond in near future?
Finally, unrelated to this debate, the particular political ideology
that you seem to come from, indeed tried to prove several cultural
points by repeating them as often and as convincingly as possible,
without providing any examples in support of the argument. While there
was a temporary success, there wasn't a permanent one. Lok-e ghash-e
mukh diye to chole na, tai na?
>-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Regards,
Apra.
Indranil DasGupta
: In article <3kdroo$1...@news.bu.edu>,
: Shubhechha -
: - samir
BB wrote the best commentaries on Bangla poetry. His own influence on
literature after say 1950 is probably even deeper than RT.
This small man was for several decades the bulwwork supporting the
entire body of the modern bangla literature.
Indranil.
Sudeshna Das
>
>Good idea. And I take this opportunity to suggest that interested
>netters look up a collection of essays by Buddhadeb Bose on
>*exactly* the same topics in a book called "Sanga, Ni:sangata,
>Rabindranath". BB gives lots of examples of RT's contributions
>towards the basic elements (e.g. chhanda) of poetry.
I agree with BB.
>BB's articles were written in the early sixties and may
>not therefore be applicable for the current discussion on the ninety's
>literature.
And I agree with Samirbabu.
>BB would have supported Sayan's views, IMO.
In the context of Bengali poetry till the 50's, yes.
>Shubhechha -
>
>- samir
Apnakeo,
Apra.
Sudeshna Das
>I think I stated in my post clearly that there are others who might have
>influenced JD, including RT. But if you insist that RT was not one of them and
>had no influence whatsoever on JDs manifestation, fine, that is your opinion,
>and in this case our opinions differ.
My points are (as, I believe, I have stated many times):
1. RT did influence JD, but not more than Bidyapati influenced RT.
JD became a complete poet only when he came out of the RT influence.
2. RT didn't influence (most of) the 60's (and onwards) poets at all.
3. It is (almost) impossible to find _any_ RT influence in
contemporary (80's and 90's) Bengali literature.
>Contrary to the popular opinion, RT s (literary and otherwise) life was not
>easy either.
I fail to understand the relevance of this while discussing how
the Shonibar-er Chithi group made JD's literary life quite miserable.
>Regards
>
>--partha
Now, this _is_ my last post on this thread. I want to finish the
essay that I am writing on this issue. Also, I think I have nothing
more to say on this issue. Thanks to all who participated.
Regards,
Apra.
sayan bhattacharyya
> Do you care to
> provide _any_ example to prove your point?
I have provided examples in previous posts and will do more of the
same in answer to your questions below :
>
> The questions that come to mind:
>
> 1. To what extent? Why is it, then, that Rabindra-sangeet-er
> anurodh-er ashor has lost a lot of ground to Star TV, and is
> steadily losing ground every day? (Note, that Rabindra Sangeet
> is the most popular of all art forms by Tagore. His stories and
> poems are no where as popular, let alone his novels, dramas and
> essays.)
>
I submit three counter-arguments :
(1) Television as a deleterious influence is a worldwide phenomenon. You would
have had a valid point if it were Tagore and Tagore alone that lost his
audience or readership to television. But this has happened across the
entire spectrum of all cultures in most countries around the world, and
so this does not say anything about the relevance or otherwise of *Tagore*.
You have made an important point, but the point is about the nature of
television, not about the nature of Tagore's influence.
(2) Suman Chattopadhyay (whose pen is at least as mighty
as his guitar, and whom I consider to be a superior poet [allowing
for a liberal definition of the word "poet"] than the trashy writers
of the so-called eighties' generation that you mentioned) has on
nemerous occasions stated that he sees himself as squarely belonging
to the line of Bengali song that starts with Tagore and continues
through Salil Chowdhury and Himangshu Datta. No concert of Suman
Chattopadhyay is complete without at least one rendition of a Tagore
song, usually with mass participation by the audience. The last album
that he released last November ("Tumi Sondhyar Meghamala") consists
exclusively of Rabindrasangeet. A singer who
enjoys the kind of popular success that Suman has achieved certainly
did not need to sing Rabindrasangeet for financial reasons. The reason
he does this, is because he considers Tagore to be a seminal influence
who is relevant today, and so does his audience.
(3) I spent Durga Puja, 1994 in Calcutta after a long time and I was
pleasantly surprised by the strains of melodious Rabindrasangeet
emanating from most Puja pandals in sharp contrast to the garish
Hindi pop songs of my childhood and adolescence. The last year,
the whole of which I spent in Calcutta, has definitely convinced
me that even if the Bengali had ever really turned away from Tagore,
which I doubt, he is turning to him more than ever today.
> 2. 'No' poet is a point which is (almost) impossible to prove. One
> needs just one single counterexample to disprove it. Why are you
> trying to make _your own_ point so hard to prove?
Because I believe in it.
>
> 3. You haven't yet responded to my two questions, one about the
> mature JD, the other about Subodh and Mallika, which, IMHO, debunks
> your _no poet_ theory. Are you going to respond in near future?
>
Let us reserve that for future posts. I have a lot to say on the
question of Dash, but precious few on Sarkar and Sengupta, whom I
consider trashy and unworthy of much attention.
> Finally, unrelated to this debate, the particular political ideology
> that you seem to come from, indeed tried to prove several cultural
> points by repeating them as often and as convincingly as possible,
> without providing any examples in support of the argument.
>
So you have finally descended to making the customary ad hominem argument
based on my (presumed) "ideology". I was expecting as much.
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Very good; now one can take a *perturbation* approach to the problem. What
new elements (tools, devices,... I'm at a loss for word here) are available
to the modern Bengali poet today that are do not owe much (i.e. can not be
*easily* derived from/)to those existing in the 1950-s?
In other words, and pardon my drawing analogy from q.mech; had RT
determined all the good quantum numbers? If not, what had he missed?
I'm not proposing any answer to the above, because I'm not competent
enough.
Shubhechha -
- samir
Debarag Banerjee
(sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
[about tagore's influence]
[..]
|>(2) ..... No concert of Suman
|> Chattopadhyay is complete without at least one rendition of a Tagore
|> song, usually with mass participation by the audience.
Really? I never noticed that. Must've been napping, eh? May be he sings a
few of Tagore's songs in some of them, but those are exceptions rather than
the rule. In fact I wd be a little dismayed if Suman toes the traditional
path of least resistance and feels it's necessary to eulogise the cult hero
to gain popularity. That'd certainly be the end of his "alternative" image.
|> The last album
|> that he released last November ("Tumi Sondhyar Meghamala") consists
|> exclusively of Rabindrasangeet.
One album may not mean much. He's still got time for "prayaschitto" :-).
partha
Well, even before he went to Germany, he had one or two disks of
RabindraSangeet. That was loooooong before the emergence of this
Jeebanmukhi or whatever, Suman mukhujje! So shall we say RT's songs
influenced him like Vidyasagar's barnaporichoy influenced JD? :-)
Regards
saugata basu
....
> Ki byapar, Sayanbabu? Take it easy. You seem to be too stressed
nothing regarding tagore, but just wondering --
is it just me, or are there other folks out there who find this persistent
use of the babu suffix by some posters -- a persistent reminder of our
"babu-culture" past and the feudal mentality in our present society --
nauseating to the extreme ?
saugata.
P Banerjee
is important to discuss the evolution of Bengali literature and the
so-called ecliptic influence of Tagore on it. In spite of the fact that Suman
has published a collection of Rabindra Sangeet and he sometimes sings or
mentions Tagore at his recital, IMO Suman does not belong to the "mainstream"
pro-Tagore group of poets or authors we saw in the post-Tagore era. His songs
have aroused a new-found love for Bengali literature which we are cherishing
and savoring in the nineties.
Rabindra Sangeet, which is probably the most easily epitomized with Tagore, is
now at its lowest level of popularity. Thanks to the well-imposed "national
integration" TV. I recently was to a free program on Tagore's birthday
held at Mahajati Sadan and to my surprise, the hall was almost empty! And this
is on the 25-she Baisakh at least when the common Bengalis' literary juice
would flow like crazy! Sad, indeed.
However, there is probably a good side of it too. Rabindranath and his poems/
songs have been over-eulogized by a section of our literary world and in many
cases, he has been worshipped as a God where just like that abstraction, he
would be beyond any comprehension or criticism. And some of the very talented
poets or authors with any inkling of opposition to this idol-worshipping cult
would be dumped by the Bengali mainstream press. This trend is still on...
Literary figures like Michael Madhusudan, Jibananda Das, Buddhadeb Basu, Samar
Sen, Shakti Chattopadhyay, Birendra Chattopadhyay, Dinesh Das, Bishnu De,
Subhas Mukhopadhyay, Sukanta Bhattacharjee, Kabita Singha, Mahashweta Debi,
Manik Bandyopadhyay, Bibuti Bhushan, Samaresh Basu or Sunil Ganguly have
left a very strong trail of creativity, liberalism and compassion which has
shaped us the Bengalis of the post-colonial times. Rabindranath is definitely
one of the brightest stars in this galaxy. However, it would be a terrible
mistake if we undermine the strength of the other personalities just because we
have Rabindranath. It's an ongoing process which is shaping up our history, our
Bengali civilization.
Suman Chattopadhyay is probably the most recent example of this ever-present
Bengali trend of liberalism.
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <3kqjoq$c...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>, sau...@cs.nyu.edu (saugata basu) writes:
SB> In article <3kn37g$b...@news.bu.edu> sude...@acs3.bu.edu (Sudeshna Das) writes:
SB> ....
>> Ki byapar, Sayanbabu? Take it easy. You seem to be too stressed
SB> ^^^^
SB> nothing regarding tagore, but just wondering --
SB> is it just me, or are there other folks out there who find this persistent
SB> use of the babu suffix by some posters -- a persistent reminder of our
SB> "babu-culture" past and the feudal mentality in our present society --
SB> nauseating to the extreme ?
SB> saugata.
I don't think this babu has anything to do with babu-culture. It's
the equivalent form for Mr. in Bengali. That is,
Mr. Basu == Saugata-babu.
It doesn't matter how the term originated. I have seen this being
used frequently (and respectfully) in Calcutta.
-Shubu
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shubu Mukherjee University of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
Raghu Seshadri
: is it just me, or are there other folks out there who find this persistent
: use of the babu suffix by some posters -- a persistent reminder of our
: "babu-culture" past and the feudal mentality in our present society --
: nauseating to the extreme ?
: saugata.
One man's meat is ...
I find this usage a delicious reminder of an earlier, more refined age
that should be kept alive.
RS
Suvendra Nath Dutta
actually. I ended up enjoying it quite a bit. Although I found myself
really wishing he'd switch to a real piano from the awful synthesiser he
insisted on using. He didn't have any Rabindrasangeet in that concert. And
the only song which had any real crowd participation was "Ami tomakay chai"
which he sang last definitely by huge popular demand. My personal favourite
was "Rashtro manei kantar bera" etc. But like I said I did find myself
wishing he'd use a real band instead of electronic equipment.
The really peculiar thing actually was that he was playing Kala
Mandir to raise money for Netaji's 100'th birthday. And he was to be followed
by a performance by Mamata Shankar and her troupe. I didn't watch that,
visions of her troupe's version of Chitrangada still wake me up late
at night sweating profusely. But I wonder if it was a mark of having arrived
performing at a Netaji Bhaban fund raiser. The best part of the performance
was actually was a brilliant spoken word piece where he described his
encounter as a child with an ex-member of the Indian National Army.
True or not the crowd was hugely moved. What was true genius was of course
to follow this up with that excellent anti-jingoism song "Rashtro manei...".
Suvendra.
Debarag Banerjee
(Suvendra Nath Dutta) writes:
|>which he sang last definitely by huge popular demand. My personal favourite
|>was "Rashtro manei kantar bera" etc. But like I said I did find myself
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The opener sounds pretty interesting. I haven't heard this one yet. Is it
in any of his cassettes? Which one?
Debarag Banerjee
(Shubu Mukherjee) writes:
|>SB> ....
|>>> Ki byapar, Sayanbabu? Take it easy. You seem to be too stressed
|>SB> ^^^^
|>SB> nothing regarding tagore, but just wondering --
|>
|>SB> is it just me, or are there other folks out there who find this persistent
|>SB> use of the babu suffix by some posters -- a persistent reminder of our
|>SB> "babu-culture" past and the feudal mentality in our present society --
|>SB> nauseating to the extreme ?
|>
|>SB> saugata.
|>
|>I don't think this babu has anything to do with babu-culture. It's
|>the equivalent form for Mr. in Bengali. That is,
|>
|>Mr. Basu == Saugata-babu.
|>
|>It doesn't matter how the term originated. I have seen this being
|>used frequently (and respectfully) in Calcutta.
All the same, it sucks. I, for one, hate to see myself addressed as Debaragbabu.
When I use the suffix, it is to reciprocate similar usage. Maybe we can do away
with it here. After all not calling X X-babu isn't disrespecting him, IMO.
kaberi chakrabarty
saugata basu <sau...@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>is it just me, or are there other folks out there who find this persistent
>
always tells me that you can always distinguish a Bengali by his willing
ness to consider the entire world as members of his extended family; everyone
is "didi" or "ma" or "boudi" or "dada". My mom tells me she knew she was
growing old when strangers in Calcutta started calling her "boudi".:-)
--
________________ _/-\________
/|\ | / /| /| |
\| | \ \| \| |
*
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>kaberi chakrabarty (kab...@marist.marist.chi.il.us) wrote:
....
>: is "didi" or "ma" or "boudi" or "dada". My mom tells me she knew she was
>: growing old when strangers in Calcutta started calling her "boudi".:-)
>
...
>`boudi' is ok really. dada and boudi are ok. I don't mind when people
>call my wife boudi. It's the ominous `kaku' that heralds real middle
>age. And then `dadu' in due course.
>
>I'll give all my jeans away the day they start calling me `kaku'. Day is
>not far away. Gokule barichhe shob.
>
And be ready for the day when you have to confront, head on (or feet on
:-), whether to allow them to tickle you in your feet. Tobe se soubhagyo
;-) ho be ki naa taa depend korchhe byata-ra gokule kemon baarchhe taar
opor!
- samir
>Indranil.
Apratim Sarkar
>I, for one, hate to see myself addressed as Debaragbabu.
Chintai fellen! Tabe apnake ekhon theke ki bale sambodhan kori bolun
to? Mr. Banerjee-te kemon jani eka antorikata-r abhabbodh hoi. Ar
dekhun in general first name dhore sambodhan karar prochur samoshya
achhe. Apnake na hoi Debarag bole daklam, kintu TH-r por antoto ekta
babu na lagale ki bhalo dekhai, bolun? Shabar first name to amra jani
na, tai na? E niye SCB-tei kato alochona holo ... shudhu ki nijer
katha bhablei chale?
>Debarag Banerjee
Regards,
Apra.
PS: Babu proyog-ti ki Kamal Kumar Majumdar mahashai-i reinvent
karen? Sunilbabu e bishaye kichhu likhechhilen mone pare. Anabadya,
abashyai, Samar Sen-er RT-ke Robibabu sambodhan. Jar uttor-e, Babu
Brityante porechhi, RT bolechhilen, 'Samarbabu, apnar baba amader
chhatro chhilen.'
Jai bolun, babu shadber dhwanyatwik madhurjer kono tulona nei,
RT obdhi bicholito ... shei tradition ekhono chalchhe, SCB-te dekhchhi.
:-)
Indranil DasGupta
: In article <3kqjoq$c...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>,
`boudi' is ok really. dada and boudi are ok. I don't mind when people
call my wife boudi. It's the ominous `kaku' that heralds real middle
age. And then `dadu' in due course.
I'll give all my jeans away the day they start calling me `kaku'. Day is
not far away. Gokule barichhe shob.
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
: dban...@bme3.utmem.edu (Debarag Banerjee) writes:
: >Debarag Banerjee
: Regards,
: Apra.
Shahosh kore Apra jokhon babu-dak-er shomorthon-e kichu likhte pereche
takhon ami-o du patti namai.
`dodo-babu' ar `tatai-babu'-r galpo pore jara baro hoyechhe, tader
kachhe babu daker madhurjo konodin kombe ki?
Debrag ki bolen?
Indranil.
sayan bhattacharyya
Apratim Sarkar <asa...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
> abashyai, Samar Sen-er RT-ke Robibabu sambodhan. Jar uttor-e, Babu
> Brityante porechhi, RT bolechhilen, 'Samarbabu, apnar baba amader
> chhatro chhilen.'
>
I remember reading a somewhat different version of this incident
in a previously unpublished letter written by Bishnu De which was
published in `Anushtup' magazine in the late eighties.
Apparently, Samar Sen and Bishnu De had gone to visit Tagore in
Shantiniketan. Tagore was in his late seventies at that time and
wasn't keeping well. When Tagore mentioned this, Sen remarked in
a very patronising manner to Tagore "ta aapnar boyos to onek holo"
to the great embarassment of Bishnu De who was present. De reports
that Tagore was speechless for a while and said "Apnar baba amar
chhatro chhilo (sic)".
Incidentally, Tagore was very sensitive about his age and didn't like
to be reminded at all that he was growing old. This is why Sen's
remark was a big _faux pas_ .
-Sayan.
--
Sayan Bhattacharyya | Information is in
Artificial Intelligence Lab | the mind of the beholder.
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science|
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | - Ray Jackendoff
Sudeshna Das
>I remember reading a somewhat different version of this incident
>in a previously unpublished letter written by Bishnu De which was
>published in `Anushtup' magazine in the late eighties.
I haven't read Bishnubabu's letter. But, Sayanbabu's
narration matches what I have read/heard from other sources.
Coupled with the Robibabu, as far as I can recall, but even
without that, this incident is one to remember forever.
>Apparently, Samar Sen and Bishnu De had gone to visit Tagore in
>Shantiniketan. Tagore was in his late seventies at that time and
>wasn't keeping well. When Tagore mentioned this,
Quite poetically, as far as I can recall. RT said something
like shorir kharap etc. etc., '... mrityu eshe paye dhorechhe.'
[Perhaps Sayanbabu can verify this?]
>Sen remarked in
>a very patronising manner to Tagore "ta aapnar boyos to onek holo"
There was, is and will be one and only _one_ Samar Sen. :-)
>to the great embarassment of Bishnu De who was present. De reports
>that Tagore was speechless for a while and said "Apnar baba amar
>chhatro chhilo (sic)".
>
>Incidentally, Tagore was very sensitive about his age and didn't like
>to be reminded at all that he was growing old. This is why Sen's
>remark was a big _faux pas_ .
Faux pas!? May be.
May be not. Anyway, I wish that every single one of Samar Sen's
admirers be blessed with the sense of humor that Samarbabu had.
Babu Brittanto is a gem ...
>-Sayan.
Regards,
Apra.
Apratim Sarkar
>`boudi' is ok really. dada and boudi are ok. I don't mind when people
>call my wife boudi. It's the ominous `kaku' that heralds real middle
>age. And then `dadu' in due course.
What hurts more, is dadu for you, and mashima for your wife. Jakhan
lok-e kalop lagate shuru kare ... Kaku and boudi combination is not
so bad. Kichhu lokjon abashyo she bayeshe, shunechhi, ektu
irshaparayan hoye pore Lake-er dhare don boithok dite shuru kare,
harano jouban firiye anar procheshtai.
>Indranil.
Regards,
Apra.
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <3lcd3v$8...@dcsun4.us.oracle.com>, asa...@us.oracle.com (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
AS> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
>> `boudi' is ok really. dada and boudi are ok. I don't mind when people
>> call my wife boudi. It's the ominous `kaku' that heralds real middle
>> age. And then `dadu' in due course.
AS> What hurts more, is dadu for you, and mashima for your wife. Jakhan
AS> lok-e kalop lagate shuru kare ... Kaku and boudi combination is not
AS> so bad. Kichhu lokjon abashyo she bayeshe, shunechhi, ektu
AS> irshaparayan hoye pore Lake-er dhare don boithok dite shuru kare,
AS> harano jouban firiye anar procheshtai.
This reminds of a hilarious incident that happened in Madison. This is
based on the fact that some bengali women in the US are very sensitive
to what you call them. There used be a Bengali guy (call him X) here
who went around calling every woman mashima to all the mahima-s utter
dislike. E beta abar bangal bhashai kotha bolto. Ekdin ek prochondo
rashbari mashima ottonto rege giye jiggesh korlen -- ``Amake mashima
bolish keno? Amake ki buro dekhai? Amar ki mathar chul pekechhe?'' X
amlan bodon-e bol-e, ``Janum ki kore apni kolop lagan nai?'' Shune
ashe pasher jonota heshe kutoputi.