J.S. Anand’s Theory of Biotext And Critical Perspectives on His Poetic and Spiritual Creed (First Edition, 2016) Paperback – 2016
WHAT IS BIOTEXT? Here is a brief enunciation of my idea of BIOTEXT. For detailed study, please go to this book by Dr. Roghayeh Farsi, Univ. of Neyshabur, Iran.
Biotext is the postmodern notion in literary criticism proposed by the Indian poet and philosopher, J. S. Anand. As elaborated by Roghayeh Farsi, biotext can be modeled after Gilles Deleuze’s time philosophy. Just as the French postmodern philosopher explicates on time in terms of three passive syntheses of past, present, and future, Anand posits biotext as the all-embracive scheme that encompasses the three syntheses of author/reader, context, and text. Biotext owes its dynamism to the synthetic relations that are set up between the triad elements. Anand attempts to include the merits of text-, context-, and/or author/reader-oriented approaches and simultaneously his view does away with the limitations of each critical perspective which cannot be other than reductive. Contra responsive to triangulation of text, context, author/reader, biotext adopts a circular structure whose dynamism arises out of its virtuality. Biotext is the virtual realm in which synthesis of context (the past), synthesis of author (the present), and synthesis of text (the future) occur constantly, hence multiplicities in (re)writing, reading, and interpreting a literary text.
Like Deleuzian time notion, Anand’s biotext is synthetic. Synthesis is a process which involves transformations of events and their relations. In the processural realm of biotext, each element contracts or contemplates the other two elements of text, context, author/reader. In each synthesis, the other two elements become dimensions of the main synthesis as they are retained by the main synthesis. In the passive synthesis of author, text and context are retained and function as its dimensions. Thus biotext never discards or even eliminates the other elements. This is the distinctive feature of biotext which singles it out and privileges over all other reductive critical approaches. In his metacritical attitude, Anand adopts a pluralistic gesture toward all other perspectives by according his biotext a virtual side. The virtuality of biotext expands its potentials ad infinitim and renders it highly dynamic. Anand’s biotext develops out of multiple interplays between the triad elements without eliminating either one. Following his postcolonial counterpart, Homi K. Bhabha, Anand sets biotext as the Third Space where all codes of text, context, and author/reader play upon one another, mobilize and are mobilized, zero in on and accentuate one another, hence highly polyvalent. Unlike Bhabha whose Third Space is dehistoricized and depoliticized, biotext can never be innocent.
Dr. Jernail S. Anand
His biotext arises out of the many politico-historical tensions which each element is at grapple with. In either process of creating or receiving a literary text, the demands and/or responses of the three elements are at play, working in on one another. In Anand’s biotext the reader is given the same authorial voice as the reader. Following Roland Barthes’s celebration of the reader’s authority in the text, Anand renders his biotext flexible enough to encompass the reader, his/her context, and the text that emerges out of the reader-(con)text interrelationships. Thus the text of which Anand speaks in biotext is not merely the text created by the author, but the one evolving out of the reader’s (mis)reading(s). The same also applies to the element of context which includes both the context(s) of the author and that/those of the reader. In this light, the syntheses of which Anand speaks and attributes to his biotext notion are multiple interplays which occur between multiple texts, authors/readers, and texts.
As Farsi further explicates, biotext is the meeting point between Bakhtin’s dialogism and Deleuze’s synthesis. In her detailed philosophical comparison and analysis, she contends Anand’s biotext emerges out of synthetic dialogisms and/or dialogic syntheses of the triad elements. This comparison hints at the sophisticated basis of Anand’s metacritical notion.
by Dr Roghayeh Farsi (Author, Introduction)