| Chapter : | Editor’s Introduction |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
What space, then, did Mahadevi’s prose occupy in critiquing civil society? What did her poetry facilitate?23 She provides some clues to these questions in her autobiographical essay on her literary journey, “Meri Sahitya-Yatra: Gadhya-Lekhan Ke Sandarbh Mein” (My Literary Journey: In the Context of Prose Writing). Addressing the question of her different writing personas, Mahadevi recognises that the bhav (emotion, mood) she projects in her prose-sketches endeavours to bring to life certain people who have affected her; these memory-sketches (samsmaran-lekh) are different from her essays (nibandh). Many of these essays and reflections remain unpublished.24 As she explains:
In essays such as these, Mahadevi establishes that prose and poetry serve different political purposes and thus help in conveying her different voices. In her prose, she can use a critical voice and build on established methods to make her argument in prose. In her poetry, on the other hand, she is able to foreground the personal, experiential, and emotional aspects of her life. Resorting to prosaic argumentation in poetry, Mahadevi suggests, would be akin to parody.26
Mahadevi’s prose-sketches are pioneering works in Hindi literature, as she was the first to experiment with this literary form.27 Her use of language in these sketches is such that one is able to quickly grasp the character, flavour, and texture of the person being described.28 While much work has been done on Mahadevi’s Atit Ke Chalchitra and Smriti Ki Rekhayen, little has been written on her Path Ke Sathi (Fellow Companions) prose-sketches. Unlike the characters in her first two sketches, who are mainly servants and common people who have touched her life, the characters in Path Ke Sathi are literary people. In this collection, Mahadevi is not only able to impress upon the reader the charisma of her fellow poets but also addresses the question of how her poetic opinions differ from those of her literary companions.29