| Username |
Post |
| Puru Subedi |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 03:52 PM
Article in today's issue of Kantipur:
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/nepalidaily/kantipur/2002/mar/mar26/view.htm#6
-PS
|
| Revival |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 04:33 PM
The article is talking about Samrat Upadhya's recent book and is critically analyzing it saying that we will be subject or ridicule when a westerner reads that book in western society thus he is being unpatriotic to our country Nepal...What is your view on this? People who have read his recent book...please say something what you think!
Waiting for a new beginning...
Revival
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 10:55 PM
I sense that some of our well-known sahitya-kaars in Nepal (such as Tara Nath Sharma and others) have this tremendous yet diffused resentment against
Samrat for being so goddamn successful in America.
As far as they are concerned, here they are, bona fide and pukka and
long-time sewaks of Nepali sahitya selling the usual gaun-pahad-himal-kanchi routine, and here is this Ramay-come-lately from Cleveland -- writing
about (sexualized) urban Kathmandu going through its own flux, and then
going on to earn rapturous plaudits in some of the best American newspapers
and if that were not enough, going on to collect (gasp, choke!) money for his efforts!!
Who could have thunk that a Nepali could do it? In America no less? Using
English as his tool? Oh, my God!!
And so, these sahitya-kaars sot around and wonder in Kathmandu: hey, whatever happened to our unspoken agreement that to be a Nepali sahitya-kaar, you have to be mired in poverty, and struggle against the system, and the rest . . . ?
In say that because Sharma has, by now, written at least two articles in Nepali downplaying and even dismissing Samrat's achievements in stark personal terms, and one cannot help noticing an underlying tone of "I could have been done
better too, had I still been in the US" attitude on Sharma's part.
I don't know what others call Sharma's attitude, but I can see that it is nothing
but plain raw jealousy dressed up in some ostensible garb of analysis.
Witn Sharma et al as gurus holding the mike and humming to the ridiculous "patriotic" tune, is it any wonder that their chelas have started
copying the tune?
Finally, as a mere sahitya-lover who loves a no-holds-barred debate with our sahitya-kaars with evidence drawn from their own writings, I would like to go on record for saying that Literary Association of Nepal (LAN) is nothing but a provincial, self-congratulating local area network (another LAN) for hopelessly narrow, insufferably arrogant, intellectually vapid and blindingly over-rated dithering fogeys who know that their days have long been over yet resist the
rise of younger, more vigorous Nepali writers doing their work in English and
Nepali languages.
oohi
"time to save Nepali sahitya from these old fogey self-congratulating Nepali sahitya-kaars"
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 27-Mar-02 06:05 PM
Ashu has quite rich a reportory of epithets for his opponents!
>nothing but a provincial, self-congratulating local area network (another LAN) for
>hopelessly narrow, insufferably arrogant, intellectually vapid and blindingly over-
>rated dithering fogeys who know that their days have long been over ....
I agree with his characterization of Tana Sharma though. I think his 'Jharro' movement itself was a result of his cynical view of (intrusion of)other languages (in
Nepali).
Tana Sharma and his Nepal based disciples are wrong in saying that Samrat's
characterization of Nepali are ludicrous. May be they wanted 'halo joteko' Nepali
to be written. It is also interesting that they think the portrayal of Nepali society
is somehow demeaning in AGIK. But I can understand that. It is because they
are not liberal people, they don't like others to criticize them, think differently from
them.
But ,hey, sometimes I think our Ashu is also same. When I wrote something about
Samrat's works, you said "Who are you to judge him this way...(not verbatim),
since Amitabh Ghosh already praised him". Now these fanatics are attacking
Samrat, and Ashu is berating them angrily.Are you trying to say that Nepalis
can't criticize works of Samrat, and if someone does so , it is because he is
jealous? Let's try to listen to the views of everybody.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 27-Mar-02 08:07 PM
Biswo,
You seem to have missed my point altogether.
There is general criticism that does NOT lead to new knowledge, new insight and so on, and there is criticism based on evidence that does give us new insights.
I happen to prefer the latter, and also expect that from people like you.
Yes, it's very easy to confuse one for the other, and I see people doing that
all the time.
And so, when you said Samrat had a long way to go, well, was it an insightful comment?
No.
That's because every writer has a long way to go anyway -- so what's so new about that?
By blunly tearing apart your that central assertion, I was actually urging you to
come up with better criticisms of Samrat's work, criticisms that you are capabe of delivering.
Of course, you were and are FREE to make any comment that you wish.
But I found it very interesting how you chose to take my comments . . .
in relatively narrow personal terms.
But that's OK. This theater of public forum can and cannot be an
appropriate medium for Socratic debates :-)
FYI, there was this other short critical discussion about Samrat's work and Manjushree's work here on sajha.com between Sally and someone else. I
thought THAT discussion gave us criticisms/comments based on evidence, and gave us (or at least to me) new insights. I urge you to read that discussion, if
you have not done so.
Finally, I do NOT consider members of the Literary Association of Nepal my "opponents" in any sense of that word. I just like to be a bit subversive
and like to puncture their insufferable self-importance/vanity once in a while :-)
And, again, finally, Biswo, I try to make severely critical comments about
my own work, about works of people I care about because I am a hopeless
optimist.
A hopeless optimist because I think that it's only through an HONEST and caring and passionate exchange of ideas, view and conversations that lead to new insights/knowledge and perspectibes that will enrich all of us.
So, criticism NOT for criticism's sake and leave things at that, but criticisms because the potential to do better is so high for all of us.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 27-Mar-02 10:03 PM
Ashu:
Didn't want to childishly hark back to the past, but let me make it abudantly clear, my
friend, that when I said "Samrat has long way to go", it wasn't a self-contained
comment. It was a comment on the report in The Kathmandu Post that suggested
Samrat Upadhyay could be compared with Chekov. To be compared with Chekov,
Samrat has a long way to go. This is my consistent position, which was later supported
by the reporter himself. I don't know how I should write this 'so that it can be insightful'?
Should I compare his stories with Vanka, lady with the dog etc. etc. and finally conclude
right here that he has a long way to go to be compared with Chekov?
I believe that rather than attacking people for criticizing someone, it is better to attack
their idea. I was amused by the long list of epithets hurled at the Tana Sharma and co.
eventhough I agree with your basic position. I don't know how other felt, but I just
felt that it was little bit personal to say someone jealous, fogey, arrogant, etc when
reacting to their absurd comments. What if Tana Sharma and co. reply back with
epithets like chamchaa, tuppi baata palaayeko, kaale, gore, gaau nadekheko, gore laai
khusi paarna je pani lekhne, ghamandi US educated kids to us? We won't be able to
claim any higher moral ground. Then the final reply from us will be ,"hey, we don't give
a damn !" The plebian readership won't be convinced, and we will lose this discussion.
|
| Bhasu |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 01:30 PM
Over the last few months I have been reading postings on these boards and one of the most committed and dedicated poster is Ashu Ji. He brings forth hard-nosed topics to these boards. Those topics are sometime useful, even.
It seems that more often than not, the other posters usually miss Ashu Ji’s “point”. He has on number of occasions stated “You seem to have missed my point altogether.” So either other people are totally off the left field or Ashu is not being honest about his opinions and that he is making the statements that he does in order simply to invoke discussions. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.
As far as Smarat Ji is concerned he is a good writer but comparing him to a Chekov is like comparing a local nun at a local church with Mother Teresa.
And Ashu Ji, one can be in disagreement and be able to criticize others without being “hopelessly narrow, insufferably arrogant, intellectually vapid and blindingly over-rated dithering fogeys” After all you do it all the time and I have not seen anyone call you a hopelessly narrow, insufferably arrogant, intellectually vapid and blindingly over-rated dithering fogy.
Allow me to make an observation based on some of your other posting, including this one. You seem to have this “young people are always right… and we should be respected … and if you can’t respect us and listen to what we have to say … then you are --- a hopelessly narrow, insufferably arrogant, intellectually vapid and blindingly over-rated dithering fogeys.” That is not very healthy attitude for our generation to have. Some of us are being very antagonistic toward our parents’ generation and I think it is wrong.
Maybe that’s why Nepal is where it is now. We can’t seem to work together with our parents. This is especially true of those educated in some of the “English” boarding schools in Nepal.
Yaba Daba Do 2 Ya All
Bhasu
|
| eager |
Posted
on 31-Mar-02 12:44 AM
Samrat Upadhyay's highly interesting response to the LAN re how should nepali writers represent Nepal in today's TKP's front page.
Let’s have a national consensus on literature
Samrat Upadhyay
(By Special Arrangement)
Dear Literary Association of Nepal:
I found myself filled with awe and reverence when I read Suresh Hachekali’s article "Angrezi Bhasama Nepali Lekhakle Kasari Pratinidhi Garney" (How Should the Nepali Writer Represent in English) in Kantipur of March 26. I felt honored
that some of you, doyens of Nepali sahitya in English, had singled me out in your grand conference as an example of someone whose literary efforts would make Nepali folks a laughing stock in the Western world. I felt privileged that
you had granted me so much power that Westerners, after reading my story collection, "Arresting God in Kathmandu, "would conclude that Nepalis are a laughable, pitiable bunch. I did, after reading about your conference, go over the reviews of my book to see where the West had ended up laughing at Nepalis. Much to my dismay, I couldn’t find anything that remotely resembled mockery, which made me question whether your own literary insecurities had
gotten the better of you.
But, keeping in mind the tradition of respect for wise elders in our culture—a culture amply invoked in your conference—I decided to be a dutiful son of Nepal aama and let that one pass. One reviewer of my book did say that I was funny, but that’s not the same as saying that Nepali people are material for fun. Most reviewers said that they liked the book because it jarred their usual preconceptions of Nepal as a land of mountains and exotic culture and
serene spirituality. But I have a feeling that this is precisely what you find objectionable about my book, that probably, in your long and venerable careers as Nepali sahityakars, you’ve come to the conclusion that Nepal should be known
as the land of glittering mountains, exotic sanskriti, peopled by folks whose spirituality drips from their noses. After all, if we don’t get a chance to recycle our usual himal, danfe, Bhanubhakta, Bir Gorkhalis, and our farfaraundo flag, what else are we left with? The image of Maoists carrying severed heads of their victims in the countryside? A woman raped by a gang of men in the heart of Kathmandu? A drunken, drugged crown prince butchering those near and dear
to him? But these images denigrate our culture, and should, I’m sure you agree, be rejected outright by any patriotic Nepali writer.
I was also titillated by the idea that there you were, our honorable litterateurs, sitting in a room somewhere in Kathmandu, and deciding, once and for all, for all the Angrezi-language Nepali sahityakars, how Nepal should be
portrayed for the Western world. And in your infinite wisdom you came up with the representational strategy of, shall we say, "a happy medium," fashioned after the teachings of the very same Buddha who so handily symbolises our
peace-loving nature as a nation? You decided that we can’t totally reject the use of English language as a post-colonialist tool—I must congratulate you on this very original idea—and we can’t succumb to the kind of
market-dictatorship that obviously gave birth to my work. I’ll keep this blueprint close to my heart for future endeavors.
But to tell you the truth, I find the market-dictatorship option compelling, and I am tickled by the thought of sending query letters to publishers asking them whether they’d be interested in a book depicting my own countrymen as
laughable, useless louts.
Sure, people who are not buddhijibis like you might consider the jwalant discussion you had on representation hilarious. They might say (and please, these are not my words but the words of my imaginary non-buddhijibi
creations—I am a writer, after all) that a gang of self-styled intellectuals creating a scheme for all writers of English smacks of nothing but hubris—and a penchant for literary oppression. Some might even balk at your idea that writers
are mere cultural ambassadors whose mission is to provide for the Western world that elusively authentic "image" of their country. Doesn’t literature aspire to a bit more than this song and dance? they might query. Others more attuned
to the history of literary movements might propose that it is often in the dissolution of one culture and the emergence of another that literary works of real value proliferate. Some might meekly suggest that a more powerful function of literature is not to cruise the safe course of a "happy medium" but to grab us by our necks and hurl us into unknown, disturbing territories. Still others, bold and rash, might say loudly, "Enough of this representation nonsense! For once, let’s have a writer mis-represent us, or even de-represent us. Even better: anti-represents us. Why this whining need to represent?" In other words, they might resent you, dear gents, for being so hell-bent on your intent to represent. Some might say that your reverence for "globalisation"—a word that featured heavily in your conference—actually reveals a deep-seated desire to please the West. Then there always are those irreverent types who’ll say that our literary wallahs need a strong smack on their heads for bandying around in their tongues, like children, words such as "gauravmaya sanskriti" and "sunder savyata," as if these were candies purchased at a confectionery shop, as though
if we swirled these words in our mouths long and hard enough, they’d translate themselves into great works of art.
But, my dear LAN literati, I shouldn’t bother you with these petty considerations from non-existent non-buddhijibis, who themselves are not good representational material. You obviously have more important thoughts to dwell upon, more literary conferences to attend. So, let’s have another round of chia, and let’s formulate a national consensus that tells Nepali writers in English how to behave.
|
