Literary review R. K. Narayan

1 literary review

1.1 writing style
1.2 malgudi
1.3 critical reception

literary review
writing style

narayan s writing technique unpretentious natural element of humour it. focused on ordinary people, reminding reader of next-door neighbours, cousins , like, thereby providing greater ability relate topic. unlike national contemporaries, able write intricacies of indian society without having modify characteristic simplicity conform trends , fashions in fiction writing. employed use of nuanced dialogic prose gentle tamil overtones based on nature of characters. critics have considered narayan indian chekhov, due similarities in writings, simplicity , gentle beauty , humour in tragic situations. greene considered narayan more similar chekhov indian writer. anthony west of new yorker considered narayan s writings of realism variety of nikolai gogol.

according pulitzer prize winner jhumpa lahiri, narayan s short stories have same captivating feeling novels, of them less ten pages long, , taking many minutes read. adds between title sentence , end, narayan provides reader novelists struggle achieve in hundreds more pages: complete insight lives of characters. these characteristics , abilities led lahiri classify him belonging pantheon of short-story geniuses include o. henry, frank o connor , flannery o connor. lahiri compares him guy de maupassant ability compress narrative without losing story, , common themes of middle-class life written unyielding , unpitying vision.

critics have noted narayan s writings tend more descriptive , less analytical; objective style, rooted in detached spirit, providing more authentic , realistic narration. attitude, coupled perception of life, provided unique ability fuse characters , actions, , ability use ordinary events create connection in mind of reader. significant contributor writing style creation of malgudi, stereotypical small town, standard norms of superstition , tradition apply.

narayan s writing style compared of william faulkner since both works brought out humour , energy of ordinary life while displaying compassionate humanism. similarities extended juxtaposing of demands of society against confusions of individuality. although approach subjects similar, methods different; faulkner rhetorical , illustrated points immense prose while narayan simple , realistic, capturing elements same.

malgudi

malgudi fictional, semi-urban town in southern india, conjured narayan. created town in september 1930, on vijayadashami, auspicious day start new efforts , chosen him grandmother. mentioned in later interview biographers susan , n. ram, in mind, first saw railway station, , name malgudi came him. town created impeccable historical record, dating ramayana days when noted lord rama passed through; said buddha visited town during travels. while narayan never provided strict physical constraints town, allowed form shape events in various stories, becoming reference point future. dr james m. fennelly, scholar of narayan s works, created map of malgudi based on fictional descriptors of town many books , stories.

malgudi evolved changing political landscape of india. in 1980s, when nationalistic fervor in india dictated changing of british names of towns , localities , removal of british landmarks, malgudi s mayor , city council removed long-standing statue of frederick lawley, 1 of malgudi s residents. however, when historical societies showed proof lawley strong in support of indian independence movement, council forced undo earlier actions. comparison malgudi, place greene characterised more familiar battersea or euston road , faulkner s yoknapatawpha county. also, faulkner s, when 1 looks @ narayan s works, town gets better definition through many different novels , stories.

critical reception

narayan first broke through of graham greene who, upon reading swaminathan , tate, took upon himself work narayan s agent book. instrumental in changing title more appropriate swami , friends, , in finding publishers narayan s next few books. while narayan s works not commercial successes, other authors of time began notice him. somerset maugham, on trip mysore in 1938, had asked meet narayan, not enough people had heard of him effect meeting. maugham subsequently read narayan s dark room, , wrote him expressing admiration. contemporary writer took liking narayan s works e. m. forster, author shared dry , humorous narrative, so narayan labeled south indian e. m. forster critics. despite popularity reading public , fellow writers, narayan s work has not received same amount of critical exploration accorded other writers of stature.

narayan s success in united states came little later, when michigan state university press started publishing books. first visit country on fellowship rockefeller foundation, , lectured @ various universities including michigan state university , university of california, berkeley. around time, john updike noticed work , compared narayan charles dickens. in review of narayan s works published in new yorker, updike called him writer of vanishing breed—the writer citizen; 1 identifies subjects , belief in significance of humanity.

having published many novels, essays , short stories, narayan credited bringing indian writing rest of world. while has been regarded 1 of india s greatest writers of twentieth century, critics have described writings adjectives such charming, harmless , benign. narayan has come in criticism later writers, particularly of indian origin, have classed writings having pedestrian style shallow vocabulary , narrow vision. according shashi tharoor, narayan s subjects similar of jane austen both deal small section of society. however, adds while austen s prose able take subjects beyond ordinariness, narayan s not. similar opinion held shashi deshpande characterizes narayan s writings pedestrian , naive because of simplicity of language , diction, combined lack of complexity in emotions , behaviours of characters.

a general perception on narayan did not involve himself or writings politics or problems of india, mentioned v. s. naipaul in 1 of columns. however, according wyatt mason of new yorker, although narayan s writings seem simple , display lack of interest in politics, delivers narrative artful , deceptive technique when dealing such subjects , not entirely avoid them, rather letting words play in reader s mind. srinivasa iyengar, former vice-chancellor of andhra university, says narayan wrote political topics in context of subjects, quite unlike compatriot mulk raj anand dealt political structures , problems of time. paul brians, in book modern south asian literature in english, says fact narayan ignored british rule , focused on private lives of characters political statement on own, declaring independence influence of colonialism.

in west, narayan s simplicity of writing received. 1 of biographers, william walsh, wrote of narrative comedic art inclusive vision informed transience , illusion of human action. multiple booker nominee anita desai classes writings compassionate realism cardinal sins unkindness , immodesty. according wyatt mason, in narayan s works, individual not private entity, rather public 1 , concept innovation can called own. in addition works being among important english-language fiction india, innovation, provided western readers first works in english infused eastern , hindu existential perspective. mason holds view edmund wilson s assessment of walt whitman, not write editorials on events describes actual feelings , applies equally narayan.