Ajith Thilakasena

A fantasy among critics

Saman Wickramaarachchi

LITERATURE: Ajith Thilakasena's latest short story book is Arunalla Watenakota Withara (at about the time of dawn). But this, I emphasize, is not really a review of that book. Ajith has been, as a short story writer a dilemma for our critics for decades.

Has he not been, as his writings were not comprehensible enough for our critics, ousted from the culture of literary criticism? As it is the truth, I lay stress on; Ajith has become a fantasy in the world of Sinhalese literary criticism.

Now you might question me on what is fantasy? Suppose you quarrelled with somebody. Even after that quarrel your brain is not at ease. Next time you meet the person who quarrelled with you; you strike up a relationship with him.

Fantasy, for me, is simply nothing but those interpretations and in that context it is a mode of interpretation of things as well as imaginary situations.

Now what would you see if we apply this logic of fantasy to the conflict between Ajith and literary critics? Ajith, as it has been already done to him, was destined to be excluded from the conventional literary society and label him as an unorthodox writer.

Yes, that was the only possible interpretation, to brand him as an unorthodox writer, which has been articulated by those so-called critics of Ajith Thilakasena.

But if we forget for a moment that farcical aspects of present day literary criticism and speak about Ajith and his writings, I see gaps in his stories filled with fantasy. The gaps are between the subject (I or we) and the object (other).

If Ajith is not comprehensible for any reader, it is, basically, a problem of that particular reader. But it reveals no link. At the same time, it would be problematic, between Ajith and what he attempts to express.

When he starts to write his stories a gap between what Ajith attempts to express and Ajith himself as an individual emerges. In fact, this gap is created by language. As a medium, language is not sufficient for him.

It is a known fact, for Ajith, the language is a metaphysical phenomenon and he is not ready to accept reality or conscious world as it is. The gap we see between him and this so called language (reality) would be filled by fantasies what he created.

Ajith Thilakasena is not a writer who writes reviews on his own books or persuades others to write for him. He has never lamented about not receiving awards for his books and he is the only writer who shows his reluctance openly to media men for giving interviews.

Thus, his behaviour as an honest man has built for him a fantasized personality as a creative writer. When you attempt to decipher Ajith this constructed fantasy emerges in your reading.

Now I remember how Roland Barthes, a well-known post-structuralist critic divided a story into a number of small units and apply to them five cords which were introduced by him in his famous text called S/Z.

I emphasize here only one of those cords called cultural cord reads the tale with a stock of knowledge. When we read Ajith's stories in his cultural cord, beliefs weave around him which amount to fantasy.

There is one story in his latest collection, which is an exemplary position of his fantasy. How this story, "Aluth Para Nohoth Sisiliyata Daruwek", is based on the reality of society that could be seen if you read it. "Aluth Para" (new road) is a metaphorical term to introduce that so called reality.

Structuring elements of this reality is nothing other than hypocrisy and falsity. What we construct as a fantasy on Ajith is his honesty within this so-called reality. When this honest man meets the reality it makes a gap between him and that reality.

For Ajith it is an unbearable gap and that is how he creates in his story, the fantasy of Sak Devindu (god Shakra) to fill this gap. As Roland Barthes teaches us by his cultural cord, the fantasy of Sak Devindu which has been sustained for thousands of years in our culture would intervene our reading of this short story.

What Ajith interprets in his story, through the fantasy of Sak Devindu, is a phenomenon which has been symbolized by the reality that structured with elements of hypocrisy and falsity.

We, being exterior to the story, experience that reality. But there is a dream in us to reduce formidability of reality we experience. In fact Ajith's fantasy creation reflects that same dream of ours.

Thus we realize the fantasy in this particular short story is none other than the reality itself we experience. This is the beauty we logically elicit from a short story written by Ajith Thilakasena in our reading (or rewriting) it.

As I said at the beginning, this is not a review of Thilakasena's latest short story book. What we should realize is that a creative writer is none other than a person who comes into the gap between subject and object.

..................................

<< Artscope Main Page