Raja Rao, RK Narayan and Mulk Raj Anand

257 Pages·2017·11.04 MB·English

by  Ronald Shepherd

5 ?5
6
ASPECTS OF IDENTITY IN THE INDO-ENGLISH NOVEL:
:
A STUDY OF THREE NOVELISTS RAJA RAO,
R. K. NARAYAN AND MULK RAJ ANAND
by
Ronal d Shepherd B"A. (Hons) .
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy in the Department of
Eng'lÍsh, University of Adelaide
June1974.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
iv
SUMMARY
vi
DECLARATION
vii
ACKNOÌdLEDGEMENTS
ix
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
Chapter
RAJA RAO
I.
SYMBOLIC ORGANIZATION IN THE SERPENT AND THE ROPE 9
II.
CHARACTER 0F RAMASI^,AMY 43
III.
DUALISM AND NON-DUALISM 60
IV. SYMBOLISM IN THE CAT AND SHAKESPEARE 77
V. MOVEMENT IN KANTHAPURA sv
R.K.
NARAYAN
VI.
QUEST, CYCLIC AND LINEAR DIMENSIONS IN THE INANCIAL
EXPERT, THE GUIDE AND THE VENDOR OF 112
VI I. . AND IN THE OTHER NOVELS 141
MULK RAJ ANAND
UII. THE POWER OF DARKNESS IN ANAND'S NOVELS 160
IX. SOME COMPARISONS IN THE NOVELS OF RAO, NARAYAN AND
ANAND 201
General Approach 201
Styl e 206
't1
Chapter Page
Myth 211
Myth as Al legory 219
CONCLUSION 229
APPENDIX. 232
BIBL IOGRAPHY 233
't1'l
SUMMARY
This thesis attempts to examine certain features in the
novels of three Indo-Eng'lish authors which might, in some sense,,
be calIed "Indian."
Chapter I considers the Indian mandala or yantra as a
possible conceptual model in Raja Rao's novel The Serpent and
the Rope. Chapter II deals with Raja Rao's central character
Ramaswamy in the light of the traditional Indian hero and the
modern novel hero. In Chapter III we look at some of the com-
plexities inherent in Ramaswamy's "pi'lgrimage." Chapter IV con-
siders Raja Rao's modification in The Cat and Shakespeare of the
I.
more overt'ly emblematic symbol'ism discussed'in Chapter The
final chapter on Raja Rao, Chapter V, is concerned with a sense
of movement in Kanthapura and the way in which a traditional
cyclic form is rendered in the terms of a modern cinematic-ljke
technique.
Chapters VI and VII deal with structural elements in the
novels of R.K. Narayan. I deliberately consider some later nov-
els first, and then go back to look at some incìpient and emerg-
ing forms in the earlier works. In these chapters I suggest that,
despite the obvious differences between the two authors 'in rela-
'tv
tion to subject, sty'le and personal beliefs within Hinduism,
there yet exist structural elements common to the designs of
both wri ters.
I give a single section to the works of Mulk Raj Anand
in Chapter VIII. This is l,.argely a study of what might be
called the darker side to Anand's revolutionary optimism, but
again an "Indian" darkness characteroized by elements of folk-
lore and superstition, of ethnic origin.
Chapter IX makes some general observatjons on the dif-
ferences between the three writers. At the same tjme I suggest
ways in which they are tied to common patterns as compatriots.
This involves a discussion of "myth" and of "al'legory" in view
of the broad current of Indian tradÍtion.
V
DECLARATION
This thesis contains no material which
has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or dip'loma in any universi-
ty, and (to the best of my knowledge and
bel ief ) no material previously pub'li shed
or written by another person, except
where due reference is made in the text l
or notes.
The thesis does, however, contain one
I)
chapter (Chapter which has been pub-
lished in slightly modified form in
Southern Review Vol. 6, No.2 (June, 1973).
vi
ACKNOI^ILEDGEMENTS
Resources for this thesis came from the three major li-
braries in Adelaide, South Australia -- the State Public Library,
the Barr Smith Library and the Flinders Unjversity Library.
Other libraries include the library of the University of Mysore
and the National Library, both in Indja. In all of these places
I have been given assistance by 'librarians and staff.
of I
Among those who have been specia'l assistance, am
grateful to my superv'isor, Mr. H.M. hJi I I iams, of the Engì ish
Department, Univers'ity of Adelajde; and also to the Head of the
same department, Mr. F.H. Mares, for his appreciation of my par-
t'icular needs. I am also gratefuì to Dr. S.C. Hamex of the Eng-
lÌsh Department, Fljnders Unjversity, who has always been help-
ful and encouraging. In India I was fortunate to have had
stimulating djscussions wjth Professor C.D. Narasimhaiah and
members of his English Department staff. And having missed Mr.
R.K. Narayan in Mysore, I was delighted to meet him personally
at a Writers' l¡leek Conference in Adelaide during March, 1974.
At a personal interview Mr. Narayan was very patient while an-
swering my questìons and, needless to say, I benefited inesti-
mabl'
viì
The research for this thesis was made poss'ibìe by a
University of Adelaide Research Grant and Travel Allowance.
v] l'l
PREFACE
This dissertation is intended to constitute a "thesis"
in a faír1y narrow senseof monograph rather than rev'iew. Al-
though, for instance, the discussion centres on Indo-English
literature I deliberately narrov{ the scope so as to om'it such
matters as the sociolog'ical, the theoretical and the more
speculative problems often associated with this branch of fic-
tion. Even within the given area of "ident'ity" I prefer to
dwell on one sort of identity at the expense of others. The
word "Aspects" in the t'itle'is meant to refer not on'ly to d'if-
ferent phenomena, but also to the same phenomena sighted on a
number of separate occasions either in the works of a single
author or in the various works of all three authors.
In general appearance, the loose ordering of chapters
is meant to give the partial impression of a volume of essays,
all more or less on the same main topic, but diverging here and
there whenever the need arises.
A word about th'is "need." If I have followed any single
quiding starit has been chiefly the star of my own persona'l in-
terests. The path I have taken has been determined by a com-
bination of personal interest and an awareness of what has al-
1X
ready been said (by other critics) and what still remains to be
said. I have deliberate'ly shunned anything as complete (and
possibly as monotonous) as a comprehensive survey, preferring to
pick on (as they appear to me) the more choice morsels.
There are some problems which arise as the consequence
of this method, and I mentjon these here to regìster my con-
sciousness of possible objections. It mìght be felt that such
an approach tends toward distortion, reduct'ive simplification,
or other such inaccuracies. Nor would I deny that I am often
attracted by the unobvious. In defense, I vrould only make two
points. First, that this is perhaps the priv'ilege of the thesis
jn
as against the more comprehensive treatise, and that fact any
approach which tries to specialize must automatjcally reduce or
distort b.y virtue of what is left out. Second, that there now
exists a sizeable body of literary criticism in this particular
area which addresses itself almost exclusive'ly to genera'l des-
criptions, abstract speculations, and so on; or else critical
works which do l'ittle more than reiterate what is already known
and established. In the folìowing chapters I have made a con-
scious effort to do otherw'ise.
F'inally, I make a p'lea to the spec'ialÍst jn Indjan life
and phi'losophy to make allowances for the superficiality of my
own knowledge in this sphere. I would remind him that I am not,
X