| Hom Raj |
Posted
on 21-Feb-01 11:51 AM
In regards to the discussion on writing:
To me, the most important thing is to encourage more writing, from all segments of our society, and more reading, especially in Nepali! I really look forward to the day that Nepali parents read to their children at bedtime, when libraries are found in villages, when novels and poetry books are on the bookshelves of urban educated people rather than stuffed animals
and imported dolls showcased in boxes. When that happens, the standards of our writing will improve astronomically and naturally. Instead of fighting about what words we should use, we should be fighting how we can get our fellow Nepalese to appreciate literature and establish reading culture in our own country, so that writers have an incentive to write well.
I'd also like to respond to some feedback I received from Gokul:
"I hate those who judge people by their background and upbringing while discussing a topic like this."
Actually this reminds me of the work of an interesting scholar, Naomi Baron, who has pointed out (I forget where) that email communications have the illusion of intimacy and perhaps because of this tend to become more confrontational. I expect if we were talking in person, with nonverbal cues, etc., our wording might be different. In spite of these problems, email is great because
in fact we don't know each other, and here we can have a dialogue!
"The judgement should be based on the merits and demerits of what they say, not who they are."
Of course. But if the question is HOW things are said, eg the use of English, then "who they are" to some degree enters into it. In the Renaissance princes wrote better than peasants, especially in Latin. Did that mean their argument had more merit? Well, they were also trained in rhetoric, so depending on who judged, maybe so. If we are to be concerned with open communication we should be conscious of socioeconomic issues. I don't mean on a personal level, since none of us have control over where we were born, went to school, etc., but on a sociological level--especially if
we are truly concerned with inclusiveness, encouraging the development of Nepali literature, etc. But I apologize if I seem to be attacking anyone.
"And isn't it contradictory that those from private schools are advocating simple language while our gaune (to borrow your term) friends are becoming impatient to show off their word power?"
Not really. Simple language is a more modern style. It's also, usually, better. But people who write the kind of ridiculous sentence quoted or invented earlier about innebriation and engined vehicles are not comfortable in English. A native speaker or virtual native speaker of English would just laugh at that kind of sentence, she wouldn't write it.So ironically, simple writing does end up being a mark of privilege, because it's a mark of a high level of comfort with words and their nuances.
I'm not defending bad writing--in fact let me say a big thank you
to Ashu for advocating textbooks written with clarity--I'm just putting it in context and making a plea for some level of compassion and social awareness, especially in regards to the older generation's style of writing (which I often thoroughly dislike, too).
Anyway, I do think it is important to recognize our privelege. All of us here in America have somehow been more privileged or luckier than most people. The existence of Inferiority Complex and Superiority Complex was mentioned, but there is another complex--that is, the Pretend-It-Doesn't-Exist Complex, which is the dismissal of the ontology of structured inequality that plagues modern society.
None of this is meant personally. I truly believe that this type of communication is a great way of cultivating our own understanding of who we are and how we can build a better future for Nepal.
Hom Raj
|
