| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Feb-01 11:50 AM
A few years ago, two smart young guys started writing
regularly for The Kathmandu Post. One was Rupesh
Pradhan. The other was Bikas Joshi.
I consider both Rupesh and Bikash to be first-rate
writers: Nepalis who can write in simple, clear
language with forceful logic -- again and again.
Even if you disagreed with their conclusions, you
still enjoyed watching their minds at play. Rupesh
and Bikash are NOT your professional or 'sahitya-kaar'
writers. They are just two intelligent Nepalis who
are masters at arguing a point of view confidently
and clearly in public. [If they were carpenters,
they would know how to put together a fine, sturdy
chair!]
I consider their kind of non-fiction writing a
SERIOUS, serious necessity in Nepal and in Nepali
communities all over.
And I wish there were 100s of Rupeshes and Bikases
to elevate the level of public debates in Nepal.
It is my conviction that many Nepalis can elevate
the level of public debates by:
a) NOT showing off their large vocabulary at the
expense of substance, BUT:
b) by using simplicity, clarity and logical progressions
of thoughts to raise issues that matter.
That's all I mean by my call for clear, simple,
forceful writing IN PUBLIC.
(To be sure, both Rupesh and Bikas surely have
an impressive vocabulary each, but I doubt whether
you'd ever catch them using sentences like, "Since
he was in a state of inebriation, he was ambulated
to his domicile in an engined vehicle.")
Pratyoush Onta also writes very well. So do Kanak
and Kunda Dixits. I am also impressed with writers
who have contributed to various issues of The
Kathmandu Post Review of Books: Seira Tamang, Shizu
Upadhyay, and, of course, Manjushree Thapa. All
of them write with simplicity and clarity, and even
with grace, without ever forcing the reader to
figure out how the hell 'perspicuous' is different
from perspicacious, and so on.
And all this time, in these various postings, I have
been talking ONLY and ONLY about non-fiction PUBLIC
writings by Nepalis in English language. [I am not
not here to pass judgment on Shanker Lamichanay
and the rest. A separate series of postings
is needed to talk about the state of Nepali
literature.]
A "bidwan" like Dr. Tara Nath Sharma, whenever he
writes in English, seems INSECURE and wobbly to
the point of using big, bombastic words to hide
his lack of substance. And so, whenever I see such
efforts by Sharma and other Sharma wannabes, I
shake my head with pity.
Now, whether you call these observations of mine
honest or something else is NOT really my 'tauko
dukhai'. After reading my these observations,
my worry is NOT what what people like Biswo
Poudel call me. They can call me whatever
the hell they want to call me; what else can
they really do?
Again, let me repeat: I have a lot of respect for
Nepali writers who can write in English with
simplicity, clarity and force of logic, even when
I disagree with their conclusions. My point is that
we need to INVEST on nurturing/heling to create
MORE of such writers, even if they do NOT write
full-time. For that, we need to have more debates,
dialogues, feedbacks and criticisms. Good writers,
after all, are not created in a vacuum.
BUT I have no respect for writers who think that
using big words in sentences after sentences is
somehow equivalent to having big ideas. Having
met my share of such writers in Nepal and Nepali
communities, my reaction is: santaan thari thari
ka, and that's life.
Just my thoughts; please feel free to disagree.
oohi
ashu
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 19-Feb-01 03:04 PM
Ashu, I wholly agree with you in the following ways and I am assuming that we are taking "writing" in the context of general, public logical discussion.
(1) Simple writing is more effective and elegant than those which are bombastic and pretentious. People use bombastic words to hide their ignorance.
(2) Simplicity is not a reward of virtue, it is a virtue itself. To write simply but with a point and force is very difficult. Those who "complexize" writings are exhibiting their weakness, not strength.
(3) Literary writing is different from this. What Ashu is saying is about the general nature of writing, writing as a tool to convey our thoughts and ideas for public discussion.
(4) Let us not take it personally. We are not that important.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 19-Feb-01 08:49 PM
>>And all this time, in these various postings, I have
been talking ONLY and ONLY about non-fiction PUBLIC
writings by Nepalis in English language.
Oh,you do? Good. So, why did you invoke Joyce and Faulkner and
White? Did you write anywhere you were not dealing with fiction
writers?You're just trying to say 'I didn't say this, and I didn't
say that' after you realize that you have written inconsistent
remarks.(Do you think a few other Harvard Professors and
New Yorker Columnists you mentioned were really so great writers?
I mean , I guess there are plenty others better than those
people around..)
>>whether you call these observations of mine honest or something
else is NOT really my 'tauko dukhai'. After reading my these
observations, my worry is NOT what what people like Biswo
Poudel call me. They can call me whatever the hell they want to
call me; what else can they really do?
Interesting revealation of your character,my friend. You are
hungry for praise.When CK Lal( I don't know if his any books
are published, or awarded, or mentioned in any international
journal yet!)praises you in Nepal Times,you are so happy to
relay that to www.gbnc.org, but when somebody says 'your writing
sucks',you are so ready to condemn him as 'somebody who can't
do anything' or about whom 'you can't care less'.You ,if , think
that I want to do anything to you, forget that.People harm
themselves most of the time, and weakest of those tend to think
that they were hurt because of others.
I must say your gross intolerance to opposition is shamefully
evident.I don't care what the heck you think about yourself,but
I try to be quick to point out if you spew some garbage here.Be
assured. When you say most of the English writers in Nepal are
bad writers, give us the names of those people, and give us
your capacity to say so.Tell me what type of writer you are ? good
or bad? you say you didn't say you are the good one. So ,are you
a bad writer? So how can you tell others your writing is
sufficient?If you think you are good writer, why don't you say
so directly and impudently?
Not quite long ago, you named a peasant leader of leftist party
an idiot because he didn't agree to work same way the NGO
you were supporting. None of your opponents were praised in any
of your articles. Yet ,you pretend that you are the most liberal
person who wants free exchange of ideas.All garbages,man. One
can't have liberal exchange of ideas unless he allows conflicting
views.You don't even have a patience to give comment related to
a topic in the same thread, or write answer in the same thread
(in this discussion), how the hell can you talk about your liberal
ideas?
And in this thread, where you say 'most of the Nepalese writers
are bad writers', you give only one writer Dr Tara Sharma as
the example of bad writer, but give several people as the good
writer.Such a great irony! Among your example of good
writers are Press Owners and Editors your relation with whom you
have been flunting in this website, and those of your friends
whom you have been regularly mentioning in this site. Why
don't you provide us the name and writings of those bad writers
also,so that you claim can be verified?Most likely those
bad writers are not known to you, and conclusion: your friends
are bad writers, people known to you are not bad writers,they
are yonder among other people.
Again, like a Luddite, you say new tools are useless, and worthy
is the old tools, and the praiseworthy are those who can use
them for best purpose. Sounds reasonable? huh.Not necessarily.
Know why? You can calculate total sale receipt with paper and pen
in counter,but it is always great to use computers. Luddites
rejected new machines, and lost. You are rejecting new tools, I
hope you to win, but,who knows?
|
