| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 01-Oct-01 05:18 AM
The publishing giant -- Penguin Books -- is throwing a launch-party for
Nepali writer Manjushree Thapa's debut English novel "Tutor of History"
on Friday, the 12th of October in Kathmandu at 5:45 pm at a five-star
hotel.
The book which features an intriguing photo on the cover by Usha Tiwari (no relative of mine!) is 400-plus- page long.
Manju -- who was educated at the Rhode Island School of Design and the University of Washington in Seattle -- had lived in Cambridge, Mass at one
point in her life, and is familiar with the Boston cultural/literary scenes.
Here's all the best to Manju for the book's both commercial and critical success.
And may her and Samrat's achievments INSPIRE more Nepali writers to go on to achieve their own literary successes.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| GP |
Posted
on 01-Oct-01 05:31 AM
Thats a pretty good TAX to govt. in DOLLARs, a good service to
nepali public as a whole. Hopefull, the doallar will not used in
importing duplicate Levi's or Wrangler Pants, but, in importing
good books to industrial equiments.
Most of the publishers pay 10% royalty after first 1000copy
sales. Think of million copies of 10dollar book. This is what
the publisher, I have made a contract recently promished.
(don't worry, as a public servent, i am not entitled to get even
a penny). i am just letting you know what could a publication
with reknowned publisher mean.
GP
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 01-Oct-01 03:25 PM
Hi all,
I got this introduction of the book in penguin website. Thought may be you
guys will enjoy this too.
http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/Books/aspBookDetail.asp?ID=4578
By the way, looks like the book can't be purchased in USA . Let's wait
for web reviews for now.
Those who read please write about the book here. Best wishes for the talented
author.
|
| VillageVoice |
Posted
on 03-Oct-01 12:54 AM
So the book can't be bought in the US? What is the alternative? Maybe the writer wants to talk about the book. or someone will do a quick review and hopefully laod parts of the novel.
Yes, good luck to Samrat and Manjushree, the trailblazers!!
May you be the author of great books.
|
| oohi_ashu |
Posted
on 07-Oct-01 09:21 PM
Hi all,
The book-launching date has been moved to the 15th, Monday.
I asked Manju whether the book would be available in the US.
She said that now that Penguin has bought the worldwide rights
to the book, they would try to get the book in US stores too, though
by when - that's not clear.
Anyway, I guess, sooner or later, the book will have its own web page
on amazon.com
Reviews coming out now in the Indian press appear favorable.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| oohi_ashu |
Posted
on 07-Oct-01 09:51 PM
Hi all,
This past Saturday, Kantipur's Koseli supplement had a whole page spread
on Samrat Upadhyay.
Some highlights:
1) The importance of revising your writing:
Samrat said that he revises his pieces many times, up to five or six times, and that 'revise, revise and revise', is one advice he gives to his students in his
writing class. [Indeed, another writer Manjushree spent three years revising
and revising her novel which comes out next Monday!]
(To many Nepali sahityakars who take tremendous pride in their ability to dash off a poem or a story or an essay at one go -- like Laxmi Prasad Devkota supposedly did -- and take such an ability as a swaggering evidence of their own assured 'maahaan-ness', this concept of revision, revision and revision
must have come off as a blindingly new idea!)
2) The importance of having a solid foundation in the basics of your craft
Samrat gave credit to his high school St. Xavier's (Jawalakhel), especially teachers such as Fr. Watrin and Fr. Donnelly for teaching him good English. He said that the standard of English he was exposed to at STX (in the late 70s) was higher than what he has found in some US college-campuses.
3) The importance of writing about what you know:
Samrat wrote that he writes about Kathmandu because that's what he knows well. Kathmandu's various (urban) socialscapes fuel his imagination, drive his literary sensibilities and and give him materials to weave together as short stories.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 08-Oct-01 06:41 AM
And, of course, the importance of following your passion:
According to the Kantipur profile, Samrat, a literature buff, initially went to the US to study business, but soon found it boring and changed majors to study literature -- stuff he loved best.
And now, almost 20 years later, because he pursued his heart's desire and NOT his parents' or his society's dictates, he seems to be doing better . . . and that's great.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Oops |
Posted
on 08-Oct-01 04:30 PM
"To many Nepali sahityakars who take tremendous pride in their ability to dash off a poem or a story
or an essay at one go -- like Laxmi Prasad Devkota supposedly did -- and take such an ability as a
swaggering evidence of their own assured 'maahaan-ness', this concept of revision, revision and
revision
must have come off as a blindingly new idea!) "
Now this is verging on comical.
You mean Mahakabi was wrong, and these dudes are better. How dare you make such
ludicrous comparison? Be rational, dude.
Mahakabi was mahakabi because all of his books were great, and he dashed them
off within short span of time. Don't think that everybody else in those era
were stupid to revere Mahakabi.And Why not you think for 10 years, and produce
one Shakuntala? Why not you think for your whole life, and produce one Jhayaure
Kriti that sells for 50 editions? IT IS NOT IMPORTANT HOW MANY TIMES YOU REVISE
OR HOW MANY YEARS IT TAKES, IT IS IMPORTANT WHAT YOU PRODUCE. Another analogy:
If one uses seven years to finish his undergrad, that doesn't mean he did a
great job by using seven years for his undergrad degree.
Well, I am proud these dudes somehow wrote a few books and stories. But that
doesn't mean they are SO GREAT. There are a lot of writers who publishes in
Penguine and H&M. This exorbitant noise only diminishes our standard. Akhilesh
Upadhyay in Kathmandu Post compared Samrat with Chekov (in Samrat hits big
time..). There should be a limit. Chasing fame so blindly only harms these
individuals.Any sensible person would laugh off such comparison and such
praises.
Now dont' say I am jealous!
|
| GP |
Posted
on 08-Oct-01 08:47 PM
I think OOPs is right. Its easy to start, but its difficult to continue
your fame. With first unit of publication, large number of peoples
are seen to be famous, but, they disappeared very fast.
This mechanism can be found in every part of our life, not only
in Nepali literature. lets see other areas:
1. Literature ::
2. Politics: example: recent Maoist Movement, and many
other movements, including the SYFP's movement flashed
and gone.
3. In Business: Many companies they appear and disappear.
Only few survived.
4. In education: Many colleges appeared recently, and you will
hear very soon their disappearance.
5. ... In journalism (newspaper, magazine), movies, arts and ....
What they lagged is the enough resource to make them SUSTAINIBLE
on their own leg. The publishers or producers sometime deliberately
bring a new face in front of its consumer to avoid the monotonous
products and make consumer feel that the same OLD product is
better than this new one, because they find it interesting only
for first product, and thus, it confirms the OLD is GOLD. Its
producers they know how to manipulate the consumer's
demand. This can be seen in Indian Movie where the
actress appear and disappear, but, the director or
producer plays the game to make his movie
refreshing with new face and finally,
turning back to the OLD is GOLD
motto with same old faces of
Actor to Actress. Unless your
second product goes hit,
its too early to assume
you are really a worth
actor, writer. .....
|
| oohi_ashu |
Posted
on 08-Oct-01 09:28 PM
Ashu wote:
>"To many Nepali sahityakars who take
>tremendous pride in their ability to dash
>off a poem or a story
> or an essay at one go -- like
>Laxmi Prasad Devkota supposedly did -- and
>take such an ability as a
> swaggering evidence of their
>own assured 'maahaan-ness', this concept of
>revision, revision and
> revision
> must have come off as a
>blindingly new idea!) "
Oops wrote:
>Now this is verging on comical.
>
>You mean Mahakabi was wrong, and these dudes
>are better. How dare you make such
>ludicrous comparison? Be rational, dude.
What I said was this: Because LPD was supposed to have written his stuff
at one go, and because LPD was LPD, most sahityakars in Nepal seem to
follow that "at one go" route in their writings and disdain revising any of their works. So much so that they don't even want their stuff edited by a competent editor. All this non-revision policy only seems to HURT their writings.
Most of us are not as genius as the Mahakabi, and, so, we are better off sticking to the boring routine of writing one draft, then revising it, and then revising it again and again. This is how most reasonable people aspire to be writers. And so, my point was: Revising your writing again and again is NOT a wimpy thing, not a failure on your part, but that it's a sensible thing to do. This is a point lost on many of our sahityakars who pride themselves on writing in one sitting, and
getting that stuff published . . . and their mediocrity shows.
>Mahakabi was mahakabi because all of his
>books were great, and he dashed them
>off within short span of time.
Well, without disrespecting the Mahakabi, I, as a reader, have my doubts whether he really was as great as he was made out to be through texbooks to generations
of school children. A simple test is this: If he was so great, how come most of the educated Nepalis, including myself, have not read his works? I mean, besides perhaps Muna Madan, how many of us have read any of his other books?
See, because we allow only blind-bhakti of his works, and do not allow ANY criticisms of Devkota's works ( say, the way they criticize Shakespeare's works in the West), we have no choice but to call him a Mahakabi again and again, and put him on such a high pedestal that after a while we cease to see him (because he is "up there") altogether, and, so, he has become more and more IRRELEVANT to our lives.
One irony of our dutiful sahitya-prem is that we love our sahitya-kars to the point of making them totally irrelevent. And, I would argue, this is what we have done
to Devkota too.
There is indeed much we can learn from Devkota, but writing stuff in a hurry
is NOT one of them. And that's because not all of us can be Devotas.
>Now dont' say I am jealous!
No, I dont think you are jealous.
But you are -- using a nickname too -- looking for a roundabout
way to launch an attack but are forced to do it in a more civilized
way. And that's good for all of us :-)
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| oohi_ashu |
Posted
on 08-Oct-01 09:58 PM
I was happy to note that both Samrat and Manju are, by their own admission, revision freaks who take years to complete their works. This is good news for witers. We need more and more of such revision freaks -- people who can throw out bunch of their past writings (because they are not good) and have the energy to modify or start afresh by admitting revising IS writing.
And they do urge other students of writings to revise, revise and revise their works too. I for one, certainly advise my brothers and friends to revise their writings again and again so that -- after some solid hard work -- the sheer qualitative difference between the first draft and the nth draft becomes clear
to them.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 12:23 AM
I got an email from a friend in Boston asking me whether I revise my stuff before
posting it here.
The answer is: NO
I type stuff here as it flows from from my head straight on to my fingers
and on to the keyboard. Occasionally, I may stop to change spellings and
so on, but usually I just go with the flow even if it means an occasional grammatical errors. I like to write stuff here in a 'stream of consciouness'
way and like to do that with bursts of energy.
This informal approach seems to work better on the Web to convey a sense of, well, 'being myself', a sense of authenticity and a sense of self. You know, sort
of like, for the lack of a better phrase, "writing unplugged"!!
But if I were writing for a publication, I would still write the first draft with a
burst of energy and with a flow. But I would then spend a lot of time revising, revising and revising that draft -- throwing large parts of stuff written earlier out, putting in new ideas and son and so forth. The stuff I would finally submit would be my 3rd or even fifth draft. It's a tedious process, often boring: but then, writing is NOT easy.
I guess we all have our own methods of pursuing writing as a hobby or as a career. But to be a serious writer, there IS no short-cut to revision, revision
and revision.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Akhilesh Upadhyay |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 12:39 AM
Just to set the record straight. I didn't compare Samrat with Chekov. As a reporter, I merely quoted a critic who compared Samrat's writing with Chekov's.
I don't think I am qualified enough to make such comparisons. Yes, as a reporter I deeply feel my responsibility is to stick to facts the best way I can.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 12:34 PM
Hi All,
I think Ashu went to extremism by putting Mahakabi as example. Devkota was
considered great because he dashed off sensible and padyatmak works so fast.
I think the key word is padyatmak(verse) since it takes some efforts to make such
ordering while keeping the essence of poem. Since people of that era were very
good in languages, they generally scrutinized the poems. I still think that Mahakabi
was subjected to scrunity of his contemporaries, including Indian great critic Rahul
Sanskritayan who thought Devkota had cumulative talent as that of three top
Indian writers (Panta, Prasad and Nirala).
Mahakabi's works such as Bhikhari and Laxmi Nivandha Sangraha are also very
popular, so it is wrong to say that Munamadan is the only popular work from him.
Having said this, I perfectly support all genuine effort to scrutinize Devkota's
works. That surely is not tantamount to disrepecting him, that is respecting him,
we can respect him only by reading and analyzing his works more thoroughly.
In Ashu's first posting, he surely sounded like ridiculing Devkota and praising Manju
or Samrat. He corrects that in his second posting. In deed, it is too early to
compare any of our new writers to likes of Devkota or Chekov, and expect other
readers to be silent:-) But since he corrects this in his second posting, the matter
can rest here.
As for Akhileshji's comment, I was surely very surprised by the comparison. But
the purport of the critic was probably "the writing was compared TO some of Chekov's works" and not "the anthology of Samrat's work was compared WITH the
anthology of Chekov". Samrat writes fine, but he has a long way to go, let's face
it. Irrational comparisons only harms ourselves.
--------------******************------------------------****************
Btw, if citation is supposed to be only standard for ranking, the best poem (#1) in
Nepali poetry should be the "Naitik - Dristanta " from "Lalitya I" by Lekhanath
Poudel.
Some of the best lines from that two-page long poem:
"Upakari Guni Byakti Nihurinchha Nirantara
Phaleko Brikshyako haago Najhukeko Kahaa Chha ra?"
"Kaudi ma pani milkanchhan Villa ka deshma mani"
"Chhoto badyo bhane jyaadaa phurti dhaachaa badhaauchha
Urlado khahare hera kattiko gadgadaauchha"
etc etc..
With immortal poem collections, Laalitya is the best book of poem to keep, read
and talk about.
|
| Akhilesh |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 06:22 PM
Biswoji:
A point well taken. Samrat *does* have long way to go.
|
| oohi_ashu |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 06:49 PM
Biswo wrote:
>I think Ashu went to extremism by putting
>Mahakabi as example.
Well, I do NOT consider using LPD
as an example as a matter of
"extremism".
>Devkota was
>considered great because he dashed off
>sensible and padyatmak works so fast.
Fine.
OTHER people thought Devkota
was great, and I have no probem
with that.
But why do YOU think Devkota
was great? What are YOUR
reasons?
If you say that 'famous critics think that
Devkota was great, therefore I think
he was great too', then, that
is not helping much for we still do not
know your own thinking.
On a larger note, It's time we worked out our own
basis for judging Devkota's works
(or for that matter any writer's works)
without relying on selected critics to do the
thinking for us.
>Having said this, I perfectly support all
>genuine effort to scrutinize Devkota's
>works. That surely is not tantamount to
>disrepecting him, that is respecting him,
>we can respect him only by reading and
>analyzing his works more thoroughly.
This is fine in theory, but does not
happen in Nepal -- at least not in the
literary magazines. If anyone has the
evidence on the contrary, please let
me know. I'd be interested to read it.
>In Ashu's first posting, he surely sounded
>like ridiculing Devkota and praising Manju
>or Samrat.
No.
I was saying that Samrat's revelation that
he revises his stuff must have come across
as a new idea to our shahityakars who,
taking Devkota as an example, NEVER seem
to revise any of their works.
(One remedy I use NOT to misinterpret others is
to use DIRECT quotes from their postings. This way,
I let their words speak for themselves WITHOUT putting in my
own meanings/thoughts into their words.)
>In deed, it is too early to
>compare any of our new writers to likes of
>Devkota or Chekov, and expect other
>readers to be silent:-)
It may well be too early or too late, who knows!
Akhilesh too said that he was, in his capacity as a
reporter, quoting some other critic.
Akhilesh himself was NOT making the comparison.
>"Samrat writes fine,
>but he has a long way to go.
Well, with a book published by a major US publisher, and
with reviews in the NYT and so on, Samrat has already
travelled far -- further than most Nepali writers, and, I,
for one, wish him all the best, while reserving, as a reader,
the right to like/dislike his stories.
But I certainly do NOT want to sound like a schoolmaster
nor do I have the confidence to breezily
tell a published author that "he has a long
way to go".
After all, none of us is Naipaul to Samrat's Thoreaux.
> let's face
>it. Irrational comparisons only harms
>ourselves.
No.
All comparisons are OK.
We just have to work out a basis to
accept or reject such comparisions,a
and that is how literary debates
proceed.
Thanks for your thoughts, Biswo.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 07:17 PM
Ashu, this is your first posting:
>To many Nepali sahityakars who take tremendous pride in their ability to dash off
>a poem or a story or an essay at one go -- like Laxmi Prasad Devkota supposedly
>did -- and take such an ability as a swaggering evidence of their own
>assured 'maahaan-ness', this concept of revision, revision and revision
>must have come off as a blindingly new idea!)
To the following comment:
>But I certainly do NOT want to sound like a schoolmaster
>nor do I have the confidence to breezily
>tell a published author that "he has a long
>way to go".
Well, I do have. I have a confidence to tell a writer what I think about his
supposed comparisons about Chekov. To reach to Chekov, or even to
PremChanda, he has long way to go. This is the sense.
As for publication from a reknowned publication house, I have a friendly and
very close relation with a few professors whose books have been published by
the likes of Prentice Hall, and others.
That doesn't make them so untouchable. The reality is they look forward to our
comments on their upcoming works. Modesty is the best thing.
Not to sound disrespectful, I have also told Samrat what I thought about his
originally published story in this same website. There is nothing wrong on that.
I don't want to blindly praise people. Yes, Samrat has done great job. He is a good
writer and I am proud of him. But, that doesn't mean that I keep on saying yes to
everything. Only Yes men can't make a creative person any better.
And my comment was for the comparison with Chekov. I am not talking about
comparing Samrat with Ashutosh Tiwari or any other Nepali writers. This is the key
thing. To be compared with Chekov, one needs to go a long way.
As for confidence, here is one my nice experience of last week:
I talked to Dr Juris Hartmanis last Friday. He is a department head of Cornell,
Computer Science dept. Also a Turing Award winner, which is equal to the
Nobel prize in Computer Science. Juris won the prize for his work in Complexity
analysis. He was in my lab and I was working on Networking Stability analysis,
and doing some complexity analysis thing.
"Have you read my papers? What do you think about them?" He asked me at
one point. I felt awkward,surely. "Don't worry," he said, "the virtue of student
is in his ability to question an individual without being intimidated by his apparent
stature.."
---------
We differ in this confidence issue, my friend.
|
| oohi_ashu |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 07:54 PM
Biswo wrote:
>Ashu, this is your first posting:
>>To many Nepali sahityakars who take
>tremendous pride in their ability to dash
>off
>>a poem or a story or an essay at one go --
>like Laxmi Prasad Devkota supposedly
>>did -- and take such an ability as a
>swaggering evidence of their own
>>assured 'maahaan-ness', this concept of
>revision, revision and revision
>>must have come off as a blindingly new idea!
Biswo, thank you for this quote.
As you notice, I was talking about the WAY Devkota supposedly wrote
(in one sitting, without any revision),
and NOT about WHAT Devkota wrote.
Talking about how people write and what they write, you will agree,
are TWO different things, and I hope readers are smart as you are
need not confuse one for the other.
>Well, I do have. I have a confidence to tell
>a writer what I think about his
>supposed comparisons about Chekov.
Well, unless I were a famous writer myself (which I am NOT!), I
would hesitate to tell a published author that he has a long way
to go. I mean, long way where?
Sure, as a reader, I will CONFIDENTLY tell the author that I liked his book for these reasons or CONFIDENTLY tell him that I hated his book for these many muddle-headed ideas he has in the book and so on and so forth.
But to cross to the other side, who the hell am I tell others how far they have
to go in THEIR profession - a profession that is not mine?
Coming to the Chekov comparison: In all fairness, the author
did NOT compare himself to Chekov.
According to Akhilesh, SOMEONE ELSE did.
And so, if I have an issue with the Chekov comparison, I
would take that up with that critic ad his/her reasoning, and NOT
with the author.
I would probably say something like: The comparison
with Chekov seems like an exaggeration because I don't
find some of Samrat's characters as well developed as
those of Chekov, and I would then go on to give evidence to
support that conclusion.
This is ONE way debates and discussions about
literature could proceed further.
That's all.
I congratulate you on your close ties with an Alan
Turing Award winner.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 09-Oct-01 10:05 PM
Dear Ashu:
I have no doubt that Samrat is not at fault for the comparison stuff. I am not
accusing him for that. I am saying that comparing emerging writers with
established internationally recognized writers may be too much . I hope you
understand this. Neither Manju nor Samrat will gain by comparing them with
the elderly established literary figures. Their comparison, at least in this stage, is
with their contemporaries.
To say Samrat has a long way to go is not too much either. One thing: let's face
it, his position is better among Nepali English writers, but he is not SO highly
established among English writers. You don't have to be literary PhD to say
that. And I am a reader. I read a lot of novels when I have time. I have also
avid interest in new famous books that feature in top lists. I surely don't think
literature is something terra incognita for me.
There is definitely a position for me somewhere in literature world, that enables me
to tell something about these writers.
As for Dr Juris , he is close pal of my major professor. He surely doesn't have
close ties with me, let's not misconstrue this. Invoking the encounter with him was
not to show off, but to give an example of modesty incumbent upon the achievers
that I experienced first hand. In fact,Dr Juris was asked a question about his
work related to Shamir theorem later in one session by one of our colleagues from
math department, and he thought for a moment, and replied "I don't know". This
gave me one great lesson: you don't have to pretend to know those thing that
you don't know even if you are a great achiever of that field.Achievers don't mind
challenging them. And they are able to describe their work in very simple way.
Truely, Einstein once said, those who avoids challenge, and those who can't
explain their works to a child of 8th grade are charlatans.
Have a good day.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 10-Oct-01 02:05 AM
Biswo:
I guess what I am really interested is not
so much in the DETAILS of an argument
(which you seem to be fond of) than
in the validity of the structure of that
argument.
My attitiude is: If the thought-structure is valid, then arranging the
details is not that big a deal. But if the thought-structure is invalid
(or, to use my favorite phrase, all muddled), then details too will
appear like sweeping generalizations -- sort of like most of
CK Lal's writings which are well-written, yes; but hopelessly
muddled. [I am looking for a way to do a surgery of CK Dai's
thought-process without, of course, earning his wrath -- but we'll
see how that goes, if it goes at all!!]
Anyway, since my approach is obviously different from
yours, you are free to talk about details (which
are not that important to me) and there IS room
for both of us here.
For the record, I was NOT comparing Manju
and Samrat with LPD.
BUT I was pointedly CONSTRASTING their "write once and revise many times" habit (which I think is a good habit) with the "write once and that's fit to publish
without revision and without editing because I, a maahaan sahityakar,
wrote it" folks in Nepal who like to say they like this habit because that's
how their hero Devkota wrote and published.
I just think they're being lazy, pompous and self-delusional, and that if they are really serious about writing, then they should get rid of their Devkota-pretence and buckle down and work hard to revise, revise and revise and have their stuff edited by competent editors.
Writing well, after all, is NOT an art -- but a craft. With enough
hard work and dedication, competent editors (and OK, with some talent),
anyone, anyone can become a good writer.
As for the Chekov comparision, I stand by what I wrote earlier. Personally,
I doubt whether Samrat, being Samrat, sees himself as Nepal's answer to
Chekov -- but it's always nice for an author to be compared to a great writer
by a THIRD-PARTY critic out there.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 10-Oct-01 03:15 PM
Dear Ashu:
>I guess what I am really interested is not so much in the DETAILS of an argument
>(which you seem to be fond of) than in the validity of the structure of that
>argument.
A lot of times, details of an argument are the key to understand it.
Or else, how do you know the high-level representation of the argument is valid?
Anyone can make a plan to go to moon, but he has to show it in detail otherwise
we have no way to believe he will be capable of doing that.If NASA shows the
plan, we say , well that's great. If Krishna Prasad Bhattarai says so, we laugh off
that as another joke coming from the jocular politican.
Without knowing the detail of the theory/argument/project, one can't decide what
it is, and how sustainable it is.
In your case, yes, your support for revision is the issue I don't differ from you.
What I differ in is the inconsistency I found in your argument. For example, you
think that you can question level of mahakabi's work, and question whether
Mahaakabi is really that Mahaan. Simultaneously, you insinuate that I am
becoming presumptious in my suggestion that Samrat Upadhyaya whose works
were compared to that of Chekov in one article has a long way to go. If you can
question Mahakabi's mahanness (" If he was so great, how come most of the educated Nepalis, including myself, have not read his works? I mean, besides perhaps Muna Madan, how many of us have read any of his other books? ")
without presenting any argument about which of his articles you find inferior, why
can't I say that much about Samrat? [Ironically,if your logic is to be used, these
statements could be true also: If Toni Morrison is so great, how came I [Biswo]
haven't read her any book yet?, or if Berkeley Nobel Laureate Geroge Akerlof
is so great, how come I haven't read his any article yet? I believe such example
denotes our weakness, not the writer's.]
The another key to understand my point is its context. I didn't just say here that
Samrat has a long way to go. I said so because he was being compared to Chekov,
and I just couldn't understand the rationality of that. I mean which is Vanka? Which
is the Lady with lapdog? Which work of Samrat is being compared to which work
of Chekov? See, I have respect for Samrat and his works. I don't have respect for
those who try to shield him from criticism, who try to tell us what to say and what
not to say after reading his books, and who try to deify Samrat unnecessarily.
It is what I call being more pro-Samrat than Samrat himself. As for your question
to "Where" he has to go, he has yet to win a good reputed national award,
reputed international award, he is yet to be known in English departments, which
I hope he will be successful in one day. Just after publishing one book from one
major publisher, one shouldn't be considered so cloistered, insulated and immune
from criticism.
And finally, I feel vindicated because Akhileshji, the reporter and one of the
most talented journalists of Nepal, also agreed the point I said.
|
| Well Wisher |
Posted
on 10-Oct-01 04:00 PM
Biswo has mentioned Somerset Maugham before, let me quote him, astute as this is;
"There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately nobody knows what they are"
|
| mangal |
Posted
on 10-Oct-01 10:18 PM
Just to add on this ongoing discussion on revising writing.
LPD and likes may not revise much because they write in Nepali using pen and paper. Quite understandable then if they do not prefer to revise many times. Because it is not so much convenient to revise.
Samrat and others writes in English, most likely using computers. You know how easy it is in computer, to print, reading it and then revising as much as you wish.
Maybe, it has to do with technology.
|
| ranjit rana |
Posted
on 11-Oct-01 12:08 AM
Dear Mr.
Why are you so loyal to the pedarist fathers of St.Xaviers? Are you one of their sexual child sexual fantasies? So many young Nepalese boys were sexually molested by the founding father of St. Xaviers in Kathmandu. Do you remember a father F. Moran? Why should the former students not get compensation for harm and their human rights?
You are the most disgusting Nepali person that I have ever come to know>
|
| ranjit rana |
Posted
on 11-Oct-01 12:26 AM
Dear Mr. Tiwari,
I have also labelled you a Mr. of St. Xaviers and the favourite of the pedarist priests. You seem to know the orality of every Nepali literatures, and further your self styled "Mahaness" about every oral history of western literary agents. However, you seem to lack concentrated focus in any arguments and the rationale behind it. You seem to claim knowing every structutes of arguments, and every specific details of Nepali literatures. You are not convincing to me apart from your bizarre verbosity, and verbal (second degree orality) wanking in trying to dominate every thing and every one "just for the sake of opposing and trying to put every one down." I consider this to be your ego and link to the psychotic jesuits of Nepal. My dear juniour "you are neither St. Ignatius of Loyola" nor a balanced critique of any literature. You lack human softness that is called emotion or bhaav. You lack it due to your hard scientific (so called) background). You see what I mean? We meet again and will meet again and again!!!!
Man with crocodile tears and many Nepali names.
>Biswo:
>
>I guess what I am really interested is not
>so much in the DETAILS of an argument
>(which you seem to be fond of) than
>in the validity of the structure of that
>argument.
>
>My attitiude is: If the thought-structure is
>valid, then arranging the
>details is not that big a deal. But if the
>thought-structure is invalid
>(or, to use my favorite phrase, all muddled),
> then details too will
>appear like sweeping generalizations -- sort
>of like most of
>CK Lal's writings which are well-written,
>yes; but hopelessly
>muddled. [I am looking for a way to do a
>surgery of CK Dai's
>thought-process without, of course, earning
>his wrath -- but we'll
>see how that goes, if it goes at all!!]
>
>Anyway, since my approach is obviously
>different from
>yours, you are free to talk about details (
>which
>are not that important to me) and there IS
>room
>for both of us here.
>
>For the record, I was NOT comparing Manju
>and Samrat with LPD.
>
>BUT I was pointedly CONSTRASTING their "
>write once and revise many times" habit (
>which I think is a good habit) with the "
>write once and that's fit to publish
>without revision and without editing because
>I, a maahaan sahityakar,
>wrote it" folks in Nepal who like to say
>they like this habit because that's
>how their hero Devkota wrote and published.
>
>I just think they're being lazy, pompous and
>self-delusional, and that if they are really
>serious about writing, then they should get
>rid of their Devkota-pretence and buckle
>down and work hard to revise, revise and
>revise and have their stuff edited by
>competent editors.
>
>Writing well, after all, is NOT an art --
>but a craft. With enough
>hard work and dedication, competent editors (
>and OK, with some talent),
>anyone, anyone can become a good writer.
>
>As for the Chekov comparision, I stand by
>what I wrote earlier. Personally,
>I doubt whether Samrat, being Samrat, sees
>himself as Nepal's answer to
>Chekov -- but it's always nice for an author
>to be compared to a great writer
>by a THIRD-PARTY critic out there.
>
>oohi
>ashu
>ktm,nepal
|
