Subverting the Archetypal Stunt of Bollywood Web series in TVF’s Rural Orchestra Panchayat

 

Mohan Dangaura

Abstract

With an ever-increasing number of violent and bloodthirsty revengeful web series streaming largely on digital platforms, The Viral Fever’s (TVF) Panchayat stands as an anti-stream presentation to undercut the popular notion of Indian web series. Opposite to the popular method of producing series loaded with regional abusive languages, violence, murder, sexually explicit content, Panchayat presents a serene picture of the inner story of rural life.  When using only disturbing contents have become the major spice to get your show hit, Panchayat takes the simple way of rural folks’ life to make us nostalgic about what we have lost in the course of being modern. In analyzing the negative consequences of capitalist consumer culture Dominick Strinati in In An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture counterattacks urban community and its morality declaring that such urban morality breaks down in the time of capitalism, and individuals become isolated, alienated, and anomic, caught up in increasingly financial and contractual social relationships. Therefore, how Panchayat not only reveals rural subculture but also alters the art and genre of movie production in Bollywood becomes the central issue of my paper.

Keywords: Panchayat, Web series, Archetypes, Bollywood, Rural Culture

Streamed on Amazon Prime Video, The Viral Fever’s (TVF) comedy-drama web series Panchayat explores modern-day rural India.  Unlike popular methods of producing series loaded with regional abusive languages, violence, murder, sexually explicit content, Panchayat presents a serene picture of the inner story of rural life. When using such disturbing content has become the major spice to get your show hit, Panchayat takes the simple way of rural folks’ life to catch our attention during this pandemic. It not only presents the story in a humorous way, but it also makes us nostalgic about what we have lost in the course of being modern. The story compels you through the narratives of rural lifestyles and non-hectic living style of villagers. Thus, Panchayat has been able to break the notion of the popular method of relishing audiences with petty simple narratives of commonly understood as a subculture in our subcontinent. Hence, examining the impact and popularity of rural subculture in our daily behavior to aware us about the value of emotional attachment becomes a topic to be discussed.

The story starts with an engineering passed student; Abhishek Tripathi landing on Phulera gram panchayat in Balia district of Uttar Pradesh. Like many of Abhishek’s friends, he has also an ambition to be an MBA corporate acquiring nearly one lakh salary per month. However, he remains unsuccessful in cracking the CAT (Common Admission Test) exam for admission in IIM (Indian Institute of Management). Therefore, he goes low profile government job as Village Secretary (Sachib) which would fill his one year gap and make his experience more competitive.

Mukulika Banerjee writes that recent cinematic representations of rural India have been awash with blood and caste politics, confirming Ambedkar’s famous characterization of villages as ‘dens of vice’. On the other hand, Gandhian characterizations of villages as the real heart of India have always been met with skepticism by dynamic urban Indians. The truth is, recent films and plays have rarely been set in rural India; the villager has simply vanished from national popular culture and even our stalwarts who wrote so eloquently for and against villages, had scarcely lived in one themselves. Panchayat took us right inside one. Sreeparna Sengupta writes “What keeps Panchayat ticking are the well-timed dialogues and situations that keep you chuckling all along.” There are no big dramatic moments but it’s the slice of life treatment interjected with humor and its background tracks that score big. And ultimately it’s the performances by a stellar cast and the writing (Chandan Kumar) which aptly captures the essence of rural life that are the trump cards here. The characters with their quirks balance each other well while being realistic and thankfully not one dimensional.

Ruchi Kaushal writes, “One thing that definitely catches the eye is the camera work. The aerial shots and low angles add a magical touch to the cinematography, which could otherwise look dull and faded amid the empty fields and irregular skyline.” Review on the scroll.in writes on Kumar’s optical expression arguing that Kumar’s expressive eyes convey something else too – the believable exasperation at being plonked (to pluck or hit so as to produce a quick, hollow, metallic, or harsh sound) in the middle of nowhere, and the gradual realization that Abhishek might be getting somewhere after all. Neel Gudka writes “Panchayat is a comedy-drama about an individual born and raised in the city, who must deal with the ordeals of life in rural India.” The dynamics of the village are shown through Abhishek’s eyes. The place is badly governed and he must face tricky challenges in the course of his work. Everyone around him is nothing but kind and gracious, but he is far too absorbed in self-pity to acknowledge it. The creators succeeded in delivering an authentic portrayal of rural life. The village folk is simple with a flair for prolonged small talk. Life here is evidently slow. Though good-natured, they are often quick to take offense for the most trivial of matters. And on major occasions, they pitch in to help out, displaying a strong sense of community. “The great thing about Kumar’s writing here is that he treats his characters like real people and their arcs progress naturally” (rollingstoneindia.com). The study of popular culture can be seen to offer revelations about matters such as the myths that drive us: the unconscious tensions and contradictions that bedevil us: our assumptions about the human condition, the nature of man and society, and the nature of the good life: the ways we are moved from one level of knowledge, awareness, or consciousness to another; and the kinds of messages our society communicates to our unconscious. Understanding such matters helps us comprehend how the individual and society interact and evolve.

Popular culture can thus be life-affirming life-enhancing. And its study can be a productive response to the Socratic admonition - "Know Thyself' - and to its corollary - "Know Thy Society." John G. Cawelti writes that the development of the electronic media has changed our culture by their capacity to record performances almost as much as through their potential for instantaneous and simultaneous transmission to a huge mass audience (5). With the new media's capacity to record it is now possible to manipulate and control not only form and content but performance. He seems to embody in some essential fashion the values and attitudes of the ordinary person (ibid.: 6) Popular art must have the qualities of simplicity, familiarity, and strong impact to succeed. When appropriately cast, the star helps the audience to interpret and respond to the work more readily and perhaps more deeply than would be possible through the medium of language or music. The physical presence of the star gives the story greater ease of comprehension and emotional impact.

Abhishek uses this job as the more skill addition tactics in his biodata. As the movie opens up, we notice Abhishek in a bus constantly asking the conductor about his appointed village Phulera. The conductor doesn’t reply to him first but as Abhishek keeps on asking, he says “You’re asking for the 18th time. I will let you when we get there. We don’t abduct you” (Episode 1, 1:1). And as the destination arrives; he wakes Abhishek from dodging on his seat. From the very beginning, simplicity, humbleness, and peaceful working habit could be noticed from the conductor. The over anxiousness of Abhishek’s suspicion on rural folks tries to hint him at the slow responsiveness about them. But the point he misses out is about the sure responsiveness, rural dwellers’ naturalistic way of living life. From the very beginning, we can see Abhishek’s dissatisfaction with the job of Sachib accumulating just 20,000 a month. But since he has no other options for financial support to sustain the basic life and crack his CAT (Common Aptitude Test) exams. Using the job of Secretary as a bet to make the road to IIM clearer, finally, Abhishek decides to take this job.

Another important aspect of performance in popular culture is nicely defined by Hall and Whannel in The Popular Arts. They point out that the popular arts achieve much of their ready comprehensibility through their high degree of conventionality. One can readily observe that in these areas of the popular arts it is the performer rather than the composer or lyricist who is known and loved by the public and who tends to receive the greatest celebrity and remuneration for his work. The performer transforms conventional works of art into unique forms of expression (ibid.: 7). Cawelti further emphasizes performance claiming it to be a form of role-playing and this is a basic concept of modern psychology and social psychology (11).

Gary L. Harmon defines popular culture as the arts, rituals and events, myths and beliefs, and artifacts widely shared by a significant portion of a group of people at a specific time (4). Modern technology, from cheap, high-speed printing to radio, film computer-transmission of light and sound, has brought about not only ever-larger audiences but also more creators of popular culture experiences. Popular culture also provides role models. Society's standards for good and bad behavior or for the best selves that persons might be are acted out in our books, TV shows, advertising, films, comics, sports, and arts.

Tanisha Bagchi in her review writes, “The panchayat secretary is not just a post - it’s a gaze of the privileged, urban dweller towards the ‘real India’, one that Bollywood has fed him/her through the ages.” Bidding adieu to the romanticized lens of rural India, the TVF show revels in the simpler pleasures of a life devoid of glitz and glamour. All the characters are unique in themselves, and not for once do we feel that they have been reduced to caricatures.

The same aerial view of Phulera in almost every episode warns us of a staggering pace, but the quiet monotony of a place tucked inside a huge state opens a box of stories about trust, friendship, comfort, and happiness. Shilajit Mitra in her review writes that Phulera’s self-reliance helps Abhishek find his own. It plays out in unexpected ways: a verbal standoff with a groom, a tiff over a family-planning drive. There are neat touches: Raghuvir Yadav looking at a picture of Sardar Patel before taking a strong-willed call. Neena Gupta’s homebound matriarch is a fun character, sharper and wittier than her husband. The show, however, keeps her benched till the end, which makes narrative sense but does not justify the talent at hand. When Abhishek enters his new workplace for the first time, he is greeted by the words: “Thokar lagti hai toh dard hota hai, tabhi manusya seekh pata hai.” Life’s greatest lessons are learned through pain. It takes him an entire year to fully grasp its message. Till then, the words remain just a taunt.

In contrast to our presumptions and stereotypes, the movie moves to the point and has nothing to sow about the pastoral experience of the village. The only thing movie is more concerned about is the tussle of perceptions of goal in life and way of life between rural-urban people. The intellectual face of emerges as soon as the screen takes us to the meeting of the village working Pradhan (Chairperson) Brij Bhusan Dubey, official deputy president Prahlad and office assistant Vikas. The story revolves basically around these four people. Though the real presidency goes to Manju Devi (wife of Dubey) due to the government’s actions to behest female participation in administrative power function, Dubey cleverly has become the executive president subjugating his wife.

Living with corona lockdown has taught us the value of remote isolation and its independency. It has further become the symbol of existential shelter on the fact that thousands of people have migrated back to their villages to live. But, the interesting twist in the movie comes when the collective consciousness of rural  India works as a  non-hero myth going against the urban belief of being self powerful individualistic. As a newly appointed secretary, Abhishek encounters anti-urban intellectual ideologies. His city friend Prateek motivates him saying “You’re only highlighting the negatives. Focus on the positive as well. Get firsthand experience of rural India” (Episode 1, 3:14). Therefore, how his mode of individualistic self alters gradually with the story becomes the point to interpret and reflect.

Harmon furthermore discusses the social impact of popular culture on consumers from their role models (10). By its attention to hero figures, popular culture becomes a major means for introducing new values, attitudes, or lifestyles. It is through popular culture that the emphasis upon "togetherness" or companionship has been promoted in an age that has increasingly isolated the individual (ibid.: 11). Another way in which popular culture often helps the individuals well as society is through what might be regarded as its consciousness-raising capacity (Harmon 12). It helps society to survive with greater social stability and harmony through a shared consciousness. Popular culture can also offer a kind of comfort and security to the individual, thus performing a therapeutic function. Dominic Strinati writes “The fantasies and happiness, the resolutions and reconciliations, offered by popular music and film make people realize how much their real lives lack these qualities and thus how much they remain unfulfilled and unsatisfied” (63). Personal and social tensions and misunderstandings that arise from ambiguous attitudes can often be resolved by popular culture.

In analyzing the negative consequences of capitalist consumer culture Strinati writes “Community and morality break down, and individuals become isolated, alienated and anomic, caught up in increasingly financial and contractual social relationships (9). In the age of global capitalism, an individual always suffers from a lack of financial success and tries to change his skills and possession into the best of exchange value worth for capital. Abhishek tries to relocate himself into the arena of city corporate with a high paying job that revolves around the mega projects and Silicon Valley. It will at least fulfill his search for compensation as being graduated from a good college. Marx distinguished between the exchange value and use-value of the commodities circulating in capitalist societies. Exchange value refers to the money that a commodity can command on the market, the price it can be bought and sold for, while use value refers to the usefulness of the good for the consumer, its practical value or utility as a commodity (Strinati 51). People who live in capitalist societies think they are free but they are deluding themselves. They are not free, autonomous, independent human beings, consciously thinking for themselves. Rather their freedom is restricted to the freedom to choose between different consumer goods or different brands of the same good, or between political parties who in fact look and sound the same. The false needs of consumer and voter choice offered by advertising and parliamentary democracy suppress the real needs for useful products and genuine political freedom.

Pradhan’s request to his wife to let Abhishek stay in his house instead of his office remarks his caring character. Though at first, his motives may seem doubtful appearing to win the favor of the newly appointed secretary, as the plot unfolds we succumb to no such motives. But Manju Devi’s straight rejection for they have a young marriageable daughter and allowing her husband to let Abhishek break the lock shows the concern in a bit different way, “Invite him to dinner and let them break the lock” (Episode 1, 25:11). During the same struggle in finding the key to the lock, Vikas asks permission to go and call a locksmith to break it. At that moment, he unhesitantly asks Secretary’s bike key but returns with neither the man for the job nor the bike in good condition. Vikas explains the accident and cause of the broken sidelight of the bike. Again the good thing about the incident comes with Pradhan’s assurance of getting the bike repaired and requesting Secretary to get calm.

Abhishek’s disagreement with Pradhan’s office executions and sorting out the bureaucratic deals depresses him. On trying to alter and recommend something more scientific and practical, he gets being silenced and ignored by other ward members in the committee meetings. Rather the hilarious decision of one of the ward members to put the light on the haunted tree gets hugely praised. The sarcastic rural intellectual is observed when he is asked how he got a brilliant idea and he answers “I thought it while taking a leak (Episode 2, 43:15).” His advice to install the light on that tree is no regressively enjoyed by the local politicians. The already going frustration with his life by not achieving the sophisticated corporate job and city life, Abhishek becomes more ill-tempered with ideas of rural folks and behavior.

Being compelled to work under the intellectually far inferior person and unable to make a presence, his frustration increases. But the story doesn’t stick to the same line of control. It movies on with quite humorous and ironic moments that tell a lot about our basic human tendencies such as greed, lust for power, and deep-rooted corruption in every post of the bureaucracy. Coming to the point, the story could be analyzed through a non-hero existence perspective. For one moment Abhishek appears as the major character and for the next Pradhan. The major argument remains to leave the particular orienting of a hero figure to any single character. Thus, from here the collective sense of rural heroism begins in the story.

In episode 3 during the wedding function of one of the village member’s Abhishek is too much worried about lending his office for the bridegroom’s stay and assist them in preparing for the wedding but his office assistant suggests, “You see sir, in villages whenever there is wedding, function or funeral everyone comes together to lend a hand. This is the tradition, the culture of the village” (1:16:09). Vikas again reminds him of popular culture in the village during the wedding.

Adorno’s idea is that most people in capitalist societies live limited, impoverished, and unhappy lives (Strinati 63). Tripathi’s life looks limited from body performance. He doesn’t look happy. Though he is a village now, his consciousness frequently gets haunted by the city mentality that he needs to have a decent paying job and adequate materialistic life. The simple life of the village haunts him more and makes him regress more about not being able to crack admission in IIM. During the whole movie, he doesn’t talk much on phone with his family and friends. We notice that he only talks with his mother when he has to ask for subscribing milk form Pradhan’s house. In all of the instances, Vikas turns out to be his best and closest friend.

Villagers not only have an impact on Abhishek, his presence and working capability also alert Pradhan about his own weakness on rigid authority and firm decision making. Pradhan’s reluctance to stand by with his decision upon Branch District Office’s (BDO) message to change the slogan comes as the resilience to his own habit. When even Abhishek gets afraid of potential risk he says, “If the decision is right, then why are you scared? No one will finger at the office. Whatever they want to do, they can do it to me in the next elections” (Episode 4, 2: 00:55). He then even asks the monthly price of milk from Abhishek. Similarly, Deputy Pradhan’s decision to support Pradhan on his decision to implement the slogan saying he doesn’t want to work without him shows the intimacy and close friendship between them besides professional matches.

In episode 5 when Abhishek is inquired on drinking beer and sleeping when the monitor gets stolen, he angrily expresses his frustration on being lonely, “There is not a single guy around to talk to after work hours. I have no friend, no family, no social life” (2:27:31). Pradhan gets emotional by Abhishek’s pathetic feelings towards village life and his poor daily life.

Benjamin Franklin argues that the sound film is ‘superior’ in ‘capturing reality’, and in giving the masses the opportunity to consider what it has captured (qtd in Strinati 77). Panchayat in that sense perfectly paints rural India and their collective notion of life routines. Moreover, it also leaves the ground for the clash of village and town values through the village secretary and Pradhan. Tripathi’s constant thinking about returning back to the city works as a normal life for him. However, towards the end we notice, he feels content with his effort of bringing Manju Devi (official Pradhan) back to the front. Therefore Benjamin stresses the democratic and participatory rather than the authoritarian and repressive potential of contemporary popular culture.

In episode 6 when Abhishek and Vikas were in the market for taking photographs, they get in skirmishes with local boys of another village. They were challenged to have duel by local boys after they were told to get away from the bike’s seat, Abhishek gets scared but Vikas goes ready to meet the boys for a duel on notwithstanding their humiliation, “They openly threatened us, sir. We must take some action” (2:40:16). Vikas’s manner of ego-satisfaction shows villagers' willingness to be hard and rough if provoked. Opposite to it, Abhishek remains silent an tries to get cool. Though simple in appearances, if provoked, folks too could be dangerous and lethal is exemplified by Vikas’s aggressiveness to go for revenge. Similarly, the photographer refuses Abhishek’s to give his photos and says he has deleted his all photos since Abhishek has rows with the boys of his own village, “Since this concerns my village, I can’t be traitor” (ibid.: 2:42). This shows rural folks’ strong connectedness.  On ahead Pradhan and Deputy Pradhan on the first request by Vikas get ready to take Abhishek’s side in settling the duel re-emphasizes the rural folks’ good character.

Panchayat not only reveals an average students’ frustration for a secure future, but it also publicizes the rural culture filled with the morale of humanity and unity among rural Indian folks in harsh times. With the effort of youth production house TVF, Panchayat comes out as the realistic representation of modern Indian rural life overwhelmed with nostalgic habits of our childhood. With minimal cost at production but a huge impact to present educated youths Panchayat re-establishes the aura of our rural life with which we Indian subcontinent are born with. Breaking the admired genre of Bollywood web series, Panchayat alarms us what we have forgotten and what still couldn’t be separated from us being Indian subcontinental. It touches our hearts to fill us with the sense of lost ecstasy of rural and most authentic lifestyles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Bagchi, Tanisha. “Review: ‘Panchayat’ Revels in the Simple Pleasures of Village Life” https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/hot-on-web/panchayat-neena-gupta-raghubir-yadav-jitendra-kumar-amazon-prime-review

Gudka, Neel. “Panchayat Review: a lighthearted Reflection of Rural India” https://in.bookmyshow.com/entertainment/streaming/panchayat-amazon-prime-review/?__cf_chl_

Kaushal, Ruchi. “Panchayat Review”  https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/panchayat-review-jitendra-kumar-takes-over-from-shah-rukh-khan-in-this-quirky-desi-drama/story-XyURlVj5gUOGLHoay21DFI.html

Mitra, Shilajit. “Panchayat Web Series Review: A Pleasant Update on an Old Premise” https://www.cinemaexpress.com/reviews/hindi/2020/apr/03/panchayat-web-series-review-a-pleasant-update-on-an-old-premise-17860.html

Mukulika, Banerjee. “Panacea in a Panchayat.”  https://www.thehindu.com/society/panacea-in-a-panchayat-the-web-series-panchayat-takes-us-right-inside-a-village/article31922087.ece

Panchayat Review: Effortlessly Entertaining Portrait of Village Governance https://rollingstoneindia.com/panchayat-review-effortlessly-entertaining-portrait-of-village-governance/

Panchayat Review: Rural India is a Jolly Good Place in this Comedy of Manners https://scroll.in/reel/958066/panchayat-review-rural-india-is-a-jolly-good-place-in-this-comedy-of-manners

Panchayat. Directed by Deepak Kumar Mishra, Performance by Jitendra Kumar and Raghubir Yadav, The Viral Fever, April 3, 2020. Amazon Prime.

Sengupta, Sreeparna. “Panchayat Review: A Delightful, Slice of Life Series Capturing the Essence of Rural India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/reviews/hindi/panchayat-review-a-delightful-slice-of-life-series-capturing-the-essence-of-rural-india/articleshow/75815984.cms

Strinati, Dominick. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culutre. Routledge, 2004. Print.

 

 

 

 

Transhumanism and Technological Sublime: Bhaya and Karuna in Mary Shelley’s Frankesntein

Transhumanism and Technological Sublime: Bhaya and Karuna in Mary Shelley’s Frankesntein

Abstract: This paper aims to study transhumanism and technological sublime in Mary Shelley’s gothic novel Frankenstein to explore the implications of Bhaya and Karuna rasa in the novel. I am interested in knowing how the creation of labrotaric male human being creates the horrors of robotic advancement in Artificial Intelligence. For this, I will be using rasa interpretations. Especially, I will draw upon ancient notion of Sanskrit Rasa. Thus, this study will answer the implications of technological transhumant creature in the novel from the perspective of classical Indian Rasa theory.

Keywords: rasa, bhaya, karuna, transhuman, supercreautre, technology

            Transhumanism is a futuristic philosophy which celebrates the potential of advanced technologies to augment human functioning to unprecedented degrees, ushering in a new phase of ‘posthuman’ evolution. Mary Shelley’s creature presents the threat of Artificial Intelligence.  Victor Frankenstein is a scientist who comes to develop an early seventeenth century AI who can copy others, learn from reading, a threat to surviving human beings. Philip Ball writes, “Frankenstein is a warning about a hubristic, overarching science that unleashes forces it cannot control (The Atlantic).” Frankenstein’s fear presents the failure to set the control over self-created AIs and robots that could turn their wrath on their very creators.

Shelley takes some pains to show that the real problem is not what Victor Frankenstein made, but how he reacted it. “Now that I had finished,” he says, “the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror, and disgust filled my heart” (27). He rejects the hideous wretch he has created, but nothing about that seems inevitable. What would have happened if Victor had instead lived up to his responsibilities by choosing to nurture his creature? The bhaya arisen in Victor’s heart fills the bhaya in readers as well. The emotional rasa of bhaya terrorizes the readers about the unprecedented catastrophes of AIs and technologies. The society’s response to that new creature was disapproving. It would be shunned by the society because of its extraordinary visage. Thus, now we come to read Frankenstein from social prejudice and our perceptions of nature and natural. On the other side, it creates karuna among readers when we find poor creature living unsuccessful and lonely life. With Victor’s refusal to create a co-partner for his creature, our pity arises towards the creature. The self-living creature is in desperate need of someone similar to him who would give his existence an essence. But since, Victor fears the self-invention of such more creatures who could be catastrophic to human beings lead the creature more towards a pathetic life.

            To condemn Victor for violating “Mother Nature” with his “unnatural being” seems plan disturbing in the present. Certainly it bears out complain of British biologist J.B.S. Haldane in 1924, “There is no great invention from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every biological invention is a perversion” (quoted in Ball). Modern scientific developments involve a complex and case-specific chain of events, and incur a delicate balance of pros and cons showing a lack of foresight to creature’s future and his role, Victor dejustifies the creature. He perceives the creature only as the inception of some evil chaos bestowed upon future humanity. Thus, the self-verified reason transforms the creature into a new superhuman.

Elaine Graham writes that Digital technologies create new personal and social worlds. Cybernetics devices are incorporated into the body as prostheses or implants. The twenty-first century body no longer ends at the skin (2). Victor’s creature is assemblage of fleshes from different human corps. May be that corps were so vile because of pre-technological consciousness of Shelley. Shelley came to make this creature a scene of horror that of course is the result of early innovation which was still unsophisticated. Victor narrates:

I collected bones from charnel houses, and disturbed with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of human frame. In a solitary chamber, or rather cell, at the top of the house, and separated from all the other apartments by a gallery and staircase, I kept my workshop of filthy creation. (26)

Victor’s laboratory room looks like gloomy bed of the dissecting room and the slaughter-house.

            According to the rasa theory, the aesthetic pleasure in art and literature is derived through the power of suggestion (vynjana). But it also plays important role in providing aesthetic pleasure through horror. The rasa theory distinguishes nine kinds of aesthetic pleasure which are based on corresponding emotional states: peace, anger, love, laughter, grief, wonder, disgust, heroism and horror. The horror rasa is, therefore, as valid in the rasa theory as the comic, the pathetic and the marvelous. Indian aestheticians believe that in a suggestive work of art, “the emotion is brought out by suggestion and resides in and ideal plane as forms or essences of their specific contents or instance in actuality. The ordinary emotion (bhava) is said to be transformed into an extraordinary mood (rasa) which is aesthetic delight embodied in the particular emotions” (Odin 298).

            The emotions are always evoked through suggestion rather than denotation. The traditional rasa scholars give primary emphasis to erotic (Sringara), pathetic (karuna), and serene (santa) rasa while delegating an inferior role to the horror (bhayanaka) rasa. The horror rasa is, however, an important part of Indian literature as is evident from the abundance of demon stories. Victor first noticing the creature is terrified and runs fast to escape the probable attack. “Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued  a long time traversing my bed-chamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep” (27). He tries to forget the bhayanaka face of his own invention. He gets disturbed by the wildest dreams. He dreams holding the corpse of his dead mother. He couldn’t sleep in horror. “I started from my sleep with horror; a cold dew covered my forehead, my teeth chattered, and every limb became convulsed” (27). He is afraid of it and describes it as the wretch; the miserable monster which in turn evokes bhaya in readers. The way Victor escapes from his own creation, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound makes his life miserable. He calls it demoniacal corpse.

When readers read the line describing Victor’s reaction to such as artificial creature probably the very first artificial intelligence as ell evokes the suggested meaning of fear. She forgets individual identity, thereby identifying himself with the universalized aesthetic object. Owing to her identification with the aesthetic object, she encounters fear directly, which give rise to horror (bhayanaka) rasa. “Oh! no mortal could support the horror of that countenance.  A mummy again endured with animation could not be as hideous as that wretch” (28). He describes the creature more monstrous than the mummy. For him, such creation has no comparison in term of horror it produces. Thus, “the aesthetic experience at the cathartic level” is not caused by the objective cognition of the dominant emotional state of the protagonist, but it is rather the “self-experience of the self” free from all limitation owing to the spectators identification with the focus of the situation.

Edgar Allan Poe suggests the difference in reaction shown by the two people to the same situation. He believes that an emotional mood of horror is created in order to shock the reader into action. The reader is no longer isolated in his safe world; instead he becomes a participant in the situation (Odin 308). Victor describes the creature, “I had glared on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing as even Dante couldn’t have conceived” (28). He finds the creature much more horrible after the creature is successfully comes to function. It was ugly before it was completely active he believes, but it turned into hideous object after successful trial.

            V.M. Kulkarni writes, “To say that all rasas are pleasurable is against experience. Karuna, raudra, bibhatsa and bhayanaka-these four rasas cause indescribable pain to sahrdayas (sensitive, sympathetic and responsive spectators). They simply shudder when they witness plays depicting these rasas” (283). Such fearful description of the self-invented creature by Victor loads the readers with dark horror of losing his life from malicious development of technology as would be termed by Isaac Asimov. Painful rasas are as sweet to enjoy as the pleasant rasas.

            Tragic events, when represented on the text can never cause pleasure or delight in the hearts of readers or viewers. Shelley explores the pleasurability of horror (bhibhatsa) and terror (bhayanka) through a rather ghastly description of the creature of Victor. But towards the end when the creature reveals the reason behind his brutality, the aestheticised experience of rivery (karuna) comes with a slight twist.

Abhinavagupta (c.1000) further specified rasa to be a clarification of a spectator’s own latent emotional properties, resulting in a momentary manifestation of an inner brahamasavada-the tasting of ultimate bliss” (Sathaye 362). He suggests that enjoyment of rasa is only the semblance of that bliss. He tries to establish the pleasurability of unpleasurable emotions. For, most Kashmiri critics (Abhinavagupta,Mammata, Dhananja) the otherworldly (alaukika) nature  of rasas guaranteed a transcendent pleasure, no matter what their specific emotional value. Even for those who admitted that rasas produce both pleasure and pain (sukhadukhatma), the unpleasurable rasas served either a satirical function or were carefully subordinated to pleasurable ones.

            According to Bharata, “Spectators who feel joy when there is joy, and who feel sorrow when there is sorrow are known to become depressed when it’s a depressing play” (Sathaye 369). Victor’s gothic description in similar base frightens the readers.  A general pattern thus appears in experience of bibhatsa; first a feeling of disgust or shock, then an exposition of the unpleasurable imagery of the narration itself. Rasa for Abhinavagupta did not constitute a true emotional event, but involved a generalize affective state occurring in the spectator’s mind and extracted from a remembered personal experience of emotion.

Arya Ksemisvara exposes an ambivalence between curiosity and anxiety in how we experience unpleasuarable rasas-though we, as spectators ought to delight at a poet’s skillful description of awful things, there lurks as ever-present danger that these awful things might be real and that they might actually happen to us” (37). Victor’s creature also produces the fear of such artificial creature that can outsmart the whole race of human beings.

The creature and Victor finish their conversation in a hut on the slopes of Montanvert. This important chapter is where the creature confronts his maker. The creature tells Victor, “You must create a female for me with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (80). Victor refuses and then later relents to the creature’s wishes to whom he calls monster. This scene arouses karuna because we sympathize towards the monster. The monster expresses his pain stricken grief and threatens work to destroy him. But his threatening also comes out as his deep pair over not having companion to share his feelings. So, he again pleads, “My creator, make me happy and do not deny my request” (81). The monster further promises to move away from continental Europe to the wilds of South America.

But Victor’s denial to make a lady companion to the monster arouses two complimentary rasa at the same moment. “I do not refuse it, and no torture shall ever extort a consent from me” (80). We feel angry towards the doctor but the same moment we sympathize and have karuna towards the monster. Karuna rasa becomes more dominant when the monster gives more logical answer requesting for his companion than the doctor for denying his request. He answers, “What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate, I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself: the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive, and it shall content me” (81). The monster’s demand is more plausible because he doesn’t demand beautiful companion. He just wants someone like him who could shares his emotions. He just wants to feel the reason of being in the world. He even promises Victor that he would leave the human habitation if only he consents on his request. This reasoning evokes great karuna bhava among the readers because we come to realize how excluded the monster feels in the society.

Victor is perpetually haunted by the sense of malicious monster who has turned his life into a miserable story. Though he promises the monster to make him a companion to avoid his ferocity, he deep down is panicked by the terror borne by himself. He exclaims, “Oh! stars, and clouds, and winds, ye are all about to mock me: if ye really pity me, crush sensation and memory, let me become as nought” (83). Such wild and miserable thoughts arouse the terror resided inside him. He wants to leave everything and flee away from this terror, but he couldn’t because the monster is not only a creature rather a super-creature with high Emotional Intelligence (EI). He would exactly know where Victor goes and what he does. He is capable of keeping surveillance on him all the time. Victor’s idea of fleeing away from him is undoable.

Elizabeth’s farewell bid to Victor also arouses the karuna among us through the sense of anxiety that we feel during their separation when Victor finally starts his journey as he says like two years of exile. Elizabeth weeps and says, “We all depend upon you; and if you are miserable, what must be our feelings?” (86). The miserable condition of Victor makes Elizabeth miserable and this realization of miserability of Elizabeth makes the readers emotions miserable too.

The problem with Victor’s making second creature is the after consequences based on ‘If’ hypotheses. He guesses the wrong consequences of the she-monster. He speculates what if they would loathe each other, what if she would go for another man. Since the doctor knows everybody already loathed his deformity, there is high probability that she would also reject him and we would feel more exasperated than ever. This kindles more karuna towards the unlucky monster. But again the terror pounds him as he notices the monster peeping his secret job from the corner of his laboratory. All of sudden the ghastly grinning of that monster’s lips shatters his all faith on him. He quickly feels being emotionally cheated by the monster’s pathos. When he realizes the monster’s secret surveillance he immediately realizes the some sinister inside him, “As I looked on him, his countenance expressed the utmost extent of malice and treachery” (93) and decides to stop his job re-evoking the monster’s wrath and final warning of terror.  The monster becomes able to threaten him for the final time tickling the supreme sense of bhayanaka in us. He groans, “I go, but remember, I shall be with you on your wedding-night” (94). This burns the rage of vengeance inside Victor. He wants to kill and get hi lost into the ocean, but he couldn’t since the monster is a supercreature.

Now, we feel sympathy even for the doctor as well when we realize the unprecedented forecast of his would be wife’s murder. He clearly remembers Elizabeeth being brutally snatched from him on the very auspicious night of a wedding couple. But the doctor’s work of creating a female monster was nothing beautiful. It was even more disordered and ugly. Perhaps he might have been unsuccessful. The way he describes the torn pieces of the monster as ugly and hideous tells the true nature of his work. He reflects, “I ought not to excite the horror and suspicion of the peasants” (96). He never then gives a single thought to create another fiend like him. But the idea of Victor taking firm resolution leads the readers guess towards worst terrible consequences. Thus, the bhayanaka in its real sense is evoked through the monster’s dreadful warning.

Thus, Shelley’s Frankenstein blends the aesthetic experiences of karuna and bhayanaka through the tug-of-war between the doctor and the monster for confirming their demands ethical by their own justification. Monster’s persistence need of a companion pitifully excites whereas the doctor’s subsequent description of the monster as a gruesome character kindles the bhaya in readers. The subsequent turnover of bhayanaka and karuna continually forces the fluctuation of these two rasas in readers. The bhaya of technological super creature and pity of deserting him alone evinces the bhava of sukhdukhatma inherent in every human being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/franken-science/523560/

Odin, Jaishree. “Suggestiveness: Poe's Writings from the Perspective of Indian ‘Rasa’ Theory.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, 1986, pp. 297–309. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40246716. Accessed 15 Feb. 2020.

Sathaye, Adheesh. “The Production of Unpleasurable Rasas in the Sanskrit Dramas of Ārya Kṣemīśvara.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 130, no. 3, 2010, pp. 361–384. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23044957. Accessed 15 Feb. 2020.

Shelley, Mary. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Frankenstein. Produced by Greg Weeks, Mary Meehan and the Online, Version 1818, Dec 10, 2010. http://www.gutenbe rg.org/files/41445/41445-h/41445-h.htm.