66 SOCIAL SCIENTIST attempt at structural analysis of short stories. There was hardly any serious theoretical or practical criticism written in those days. It is therefore not surprising that no critic attempted a formalistic analysis of Muktibodh's trilogy. We saw earlier that although formalism was the most popular, theoritical position, critics of his generation sometimes did write about the content of literary works. But in the period when serious literary criticism was replaced by entertainment with literary works as an excuse, who was going to undertake a serious systematic analysis of the type ofspititual fare that Muktibodh offered ? He was a Marxist, but perhaps not "rigorous* enough to be wholly acceptable to the left He disliked middle class values, and therefore must have deliberately severed connections with the middle caiss intellectuals. He could have established rapport with the Dalit writers, but perhaps discovered that most of them were too pre-occupied with the rights of one community to have wider sympathies. I did not know Muktibodh well as a person. But it is likely that he was too sensitive, earnest and austere to suit the taste ofMarathi intellectuals and seminarists. It is possible that he inspired awe, was respected, but was always kept at a distance. He won the Sahitya Akademi award but not more than a couple of serious articles were written on his works till very recently, when perhaps he was losing interest in any critical response. When one reviews his literary career one is reminded of the hero of a contemporary play Udhvasta Dharmashala, a man ofuncomprising principles, but not wholly acceptable anywhere. R.B. PATANKAR Professor of English and Aesthetics, University of Bombay