By Willie Gordon Suting
With spring being the season of literary festivals, the Government of Assam along with National Book Trust recently organised one at Srimanta Sankardeva Kalakshetra that witnessed a milieu of intellectuals from across the world.
The three-day Brahmaputra Literary Festival saw many novelists, poets and playwrights participate in interactive panel discussions on a variety of literary topics.
Panel discussions are not only healthy debates among panellists but also the audience. They help in fostering a love for the subject literature. The conclusions arrived at help in enlightening young minds today who are part of the audience. And that was what the festival in Guwahati intended to do.
There was a discussion ‘Art of Creating Multiple Narratives in Fiction’ with panellists Mitra Phukan, Nasreen Jahan, Zac O’ Yeah, David Collin and Pratap Sehgal. Sri Lankan novelist Ashok Ferrey was the moderator for the discussion.
Narratives come from voices which are expressed by characters. They are the framework by which the theme or subject is discussed. Narratives can shift from character to character depending on the need of the writer to put forth his subject. Zac O’Yeah, the Swedish writer, said each person in this world is a complex set of narratives, which can only birth a complexity of stories.
Pratap Sehgal, eminent playwright, recollected that there was a Hindi writer he read who put in many characters in his book. Sehgal emphasised that the imagery of a river was employed to link the varying perspectives of these characters. He said that this is often found in fiction.
Sehgal also mentioned the movie Talwar which had many characters narrating different stories. Ferrey said that in such cases there is no single truth when characters give different perspectives.
Mitra Phukan, Assamese novelist, expressed every single truth in fact has multiple dimensions. “We as writers write in a linear way page by page. But multiple layers create multiple narratives,” she stated.
When asked by Ferrey of introducing new narrators, French writer David Collin said this depends on the need. He expressed that using multiple narrators, though, is a difficult task.
Phukan cited her own novel A Monsoon of Music as an example. She said she could not write only about the young girl learning classical music in the story. So she had to add a point of view from other characters.
O’Yeah, being a pulp writer, described genre writers nowadays using multiple narrators.
“In my detective novels I have to use different characters. I believe this is very important for the plot to develop,” he observed.
The audience laughed aloud when Collin used some humour to lighten up the discussion. “We as artists are all schizophrenic. We live with fragmented voices!”
Sehgal elucidated that it is up to the talent of the writer for how much can he sustain and control and not let things go astray for the work to fall flat.
When asked by Ferrey about experimental fiction, Collin said that such styles are being looked down upon by readers because of their unintelligibility.
Ferrey raised a question to each of the panellists about their preferences. O’ Yeah said that he uses minor characters to contrast the main character’s journey. Phukan replied that by her using of author-omniscient, she can easily switch points of view.
To conclude the discussion, Ferrey asked what each felt was important with narrative. Collin expressed that listening to the characters is like being in a dream. O’ Yeah agreed to what Phukan earlier said adding that using a third-person narrator gives more freedom and possibilities.
The third day was all about experimental writing with panellists Kula Saikia, Dhanwant Kaur, M Narendra and Bonti Senchowa speaking on ‘Are we experimenting enough? New Perspectives on Storytelling’. Asamiya writer Y D Thongchi was the moderator for the discussion.
Thongchi mentioned the stream of consciousness and magic realism as experimental styles of writing. He stated that in Arunachal Pradesh, many tribes have an oral tradition of varied stories which are experimental. He said that lately, he had also seen many Assamese writers use the stream of consciousness technique.
Kaur observed that in the plot of Punjabi stories, mapping the story is complex.
“Our writers manipulate the plot. A writer needs to interpret life as it is. But clarity is needed in any work”, she emphasised.
Saikia explained that experimenting is about going against the norms.
“Such writers are often looked down upon because of inaccessibility. But they are pioneers because readers read them after some generations.”
Narendra said rather than follow tradition, an experimental writer treads his own path. He stated that use of ambiguity can lead to conflict between writer and reader.
The discussion, though, lacked intellectual stimulation for the writers talked only about their indigenous literature rather than experimental literature worldwide. There was only a mentioning of stream of consciousness and magic realism. But there was no elucidating on these pioneering genres and styles.
The third day of the festival also saw the discussion ‘Shaping Content: Why Editors Matter’ with Dinesh Sinha, Kannan Sundaram and Dinkar Kumar as panellists. H S Shivaprakash was moderator of the discussion. Writers cannot make it without an editor. It is because correctness in style, language and grammar is important.
Sinha said that editors are unsung heroes. As an editor, he emphasised that he selects, processes and polishes writing.
“I consider my role as being a bridge between writer and reader. As publishers, we also analyse marketing prospects meaning the writing should have universality”.
Sundaram said editors play a crucial role in transforming a manuscript to a book as there are many differences between them.
“In editing, there is discussion between editor and writer”, he said.
Sinha explained that the task is not a smooth process. “Sometimes there is conflict because both professionals work towards a similar goal”.
He elucidated that as an editor, he humbly tries to improve a work. He also mentioned his company Ratna Books focussing on translations.
“Translations should read like the original. I try to be as faithful to the original as possible”
Moderator Shivaprakash stated that editors of literary texts, especially, need special training.
Sinha added that there should be no arrogance in an editor because he has to smoothen hurdles. Sundaram said it is also about learning and knowing something about other cultures and subjects too.
The discussion was enlightening. The role of the editor in publishing business was well explained. However, what was not stated in the discussion is the flaws of editors nowadays and also how creative the writer can be. There would always be a possibility where the writer triumphs the editor in terms of style, language and grammar. But such points were neglected by panellists.
When asked how he felt of Brahmaputra Literary Festival, Sinha, editor, said, “It is a very good space where we can interact with readers of all ages”.
Sinha also expressed literature from the North East has a healthy lineage. “It has the same ethos and sensibility”.
“We at Ratna Books had published Kula Saikia’s novel If A River. He is our first North East writer. The response has been great!” he added.
Sundaram, editor, when asked of Brahamaputra Literary Festival, said, “This is an exchange of ideas because book culture is important. This festival helps that”.
Sundaram also added that his company Kalachuvadu Publishers is in process of translating writers from the Northeast into Tamil.
“We recently came out with a translation of Irom Sharmila’s poems”.
Brahamaputra Literary Festival comprised mostly Assamese writers. Writers from other states were not represented well. The panel discussions were also mostly on Assamese literature topics with the panellists speaking in their indigenous language. The festival attracted many outsiders. But the language used in panel discussions should have been in English to reach a wider audience.
The panel discussions lacked depth as they were on light and general topics of literature. The writers seemed to struggle to make them interesting.