| namita |
Posted
on 21-Feb-01 04:24 PM
I don't quite remember the whole thing but I think Ashu started this discussion - the need for "simpler" writing. I do agree with him -most of what he says (that is if i understnd him correctly) about the beauty of such writing. But of course, (it is hard to agree with anybody on everything! :))there are few things I beg to differ. Maybe it is the tone or it is just the fault of the medium (internet) that the idea comes across like a tornado and it leaves you totally confused among other things. For instance, 'I would rather read Joyce or Kant if I had to read a difficult writing...' (ashu this is not the exact quote, but i figure you know which sentence i am thinking of).
Does one's idea get diminished because readers find it difficult task - a daunting undertaking? Maybe so - on the surface. But, What does the story say? Have we started counting the trees instead of looking at the forest? In my huble opinion it is a matter of tast or distaste, if you like so. I know when we wrote papers for our school the teacher always insisted we write in simple short clear writing. But in good readings (books,) it is not always the case. Yes, Joyce definitely comes to my mind. (and i cannot think of anybody right now, isn't it terrible?)
Yet another comment on Hom Raj jiu: to accuse somebody of elitisism because that person propheses a "simpler" vocabulary - i think it is a bit unfair. Not quite objective view point. It is the product of a lot of presumptions on your part, i.e. foreign educated, maybe private education (in home country) etc. etc.
I have one more comment to Nakul jiu: Please read carefully before you pass a comment on somebody's thought. Please don't take one sentence out of many many thought provoking sentences just to force your view point. Case in point: I quote "... maybe Homji was looking for right opportunity to express his emotional boyhood suffering.... 'I went to school with in my village, sitting on rice sacks..'" Look at the context why he brought his growing up! Also you ask "what it has to do with the background?" My dear friend it has everything to do with background. What we are is what shaped us. And what does shape us? Vaccuum?? It is what we have learned (comes with where we learned, i think, it is the same thing - the learning process). Do you totally negate the past?
Please feel free to disagree.
Yours truly,
Radha
|
