Well well, the coming of age and return of once sassy, audacious and over-bearing myth called S. Nonetheless, let us hope her visit to samudaya is indeed NOT ‘strictly ceremonial’!

‘Strictly speaking’, I am a little disappointed by author’s peripheral portrayal of aristrocrats frozen in time — where the only contents accessible to them are the nostalgic mush and extremely sensitive and exasperated psyche.

While I make great effort to understand the complex inter-locking of ‘female bond’, I find that the author has overlooked the traditional patriarchal setup and failed to provide a colorful and ‘manly’ backdrop. Where did all the men go? Hunting?!, or are we supposed to assume the ‘big picture’ staring down as a collage of patriarchal presence ever hovering in the palace?

I am looking for a ‘hero’ here — even Prabina turns me off with her idiosyncrasies of a generation that scorn upon everything and anything seasoned — except when culinary matters are concerned — as if anything and everything new promises all those that remained missing — the hollow existence always looking to be filled by hope of anything ‘new’.

The story is a sincere attempt at serious narrative of era then and now. Its relevance to contemporary social re-shuffling can hardly be ignored as fictional writing, and thanks to Ms. S we can now enjoy the sophistication of her narrative while she keeps us entertained with her soothingly fluid writing style which, in confession, I am a fan of!

mystichacker, can u reduce the number of ”s in your posting. Its a pain to even read what you are saying.

the story works despite / because of a masculine absence. i had to read it twice, and i found the prose a little thick, but it’s a good story.

mystic, maybe the author is only attempting to present a simple character dissection, eschewing a complex narrative of aristocratic life - one, presumably, where men are the sole cause of a woman’s tears.

talk about rubbing salt on a wound :)

I can’t say if I like this little fantasy, ‘cause “mistress” conjures some other vision in my dirty mind, but I suddenly feel like watching “The Last Emperor” one more time..

Can anybody lend me a DVD if you got it??

This story really goes well with this Pic

I agree with the rest but this:

‘….where men are the sole cause of a woman’s tears’.

Ummm…I find that not only awfully one-dimensional, but quite divorced from the essence of prose itself. In no way does the author make clear whether the ‘mistress’ overwhelming emotional skid is a result of men being the sole cause of her…whatever. I mean, come on! Nice try though.

your comments evince a serious misunderstanding of my last post.

my main point was that the story works as it is. my lesser point then was a rejoinder to your cries for a male hero.

as i see it, the story is of a sadness caused by an attachment to nothingness (vanity) - akin to the theme presented by fitzgerald in “the beautiful and damned”

my point, based on my reading of the story was: the author didn’t include men and it’s ok; men aren’t the only reason for overactive female tearducts.

But I think you clearly misread me also. My cry for a ‘hero’ is a neutral one, I look for such in Prabina but frustratingly find that the character has not ‘matured’ enough. Instead, Pushpa seems to bear more ‘gravitas’ as she becomes a conduit between different generation and dissimilar classes.

The ‘need’ for an overhanging male shadow is not necessary — I understand, at least I try to, but given the context where the mistress’ hollow existence is undeniably ALSO a product of a patriarchal setup, one naturally assumes some sexual tension. But maybe not.

I like the way you link the prose to Fitzerald’s work. Well Ms. S, we look forward to your version of The Great Gatsby also!

Why do South asians can’t write in simple plain nice english? Using big words and deliberately making a writing unnecessarily complicated seem to be the trend. Articles in the Guardian and New York times are more comprehensible.

what?! what south asian writers have been you been reading? and what a swooping generalization.

May be was a bad generalization. But had a hard time trying to read Salman Rushdie midnight’s children and satanic verses. Aundhati Roy’s The god of small things was similar story. Then read Hemingway’s for whom the bell tolls - a big relief.

that’s not because hemingway is american and the rest are south asian… hemingway is known for simple usage of language isn’t he? and there are many america/european writes who write as ‘complicated’ as rushdie and roy. i t hink you are just comparing two different styles and not two different regions.

Sagar

You are right. I find the style of the essay lousy, complicated, and arrogant. We Nepalese try to show our command over English by making our expressions more complicated than necessary. Though I am not good at this language, I love simplicity. But it seems that we will never be able to learn simplicity from the people who use English as their mother tongue.

My second comment- the fiction above is NOT interesting. I remember my professor’s comment on one of my papers:’@Don’t write a trash. It’s a trouble both to the writer and to the reader.’

so many problems iwth your comment. this story (not essay) uses college level sophistication of language at the most. it’s the idea that is more interesting not hte use of language here and the words are really simple. and i think the sentences are simple too. nothing as rich as rushdie or roy for example. you find it confusing so it’s nepalis (not nepalese) trying to show off? why are nepalis always the first ones to blame everything on the nepaliness of things or people i don’t know understand. if you find roy confusing it’s better you become a stronger reader than she a simpler writer. she shouldn’t be expected to lower her sophistication to cater to people who can’t read as intricately specially if she finds her voice in such sophistication.

and what about the british writers who write long and twisted sentences and are resonsible for bring the biggest words into use? are they showing off too? if anything maybe its the british influence on south asians compared to american influence which tends to be much simpler and straightforward (like hemingway and vonnegut. they write very simple stuff).

Rushdie or Roy? Do they go together?

I think the style cannot be colled ‘sophistication’.

I had once learnt that the term ‘Nepali’ goes only with the style/manner/feature, etc. (eg Nepali kala). People are not ‘Nepalis’, they are Nepalese.

Do British people use complicated style in their writing? I didn’t know that. You are probably reading too much of Joyce, Hardy, and Woolf. Spare some of your time for Daily Mirror, etc.

this is a pointless debate.
name dropping authors doesn’t make a point. generalization of authors… now that doesn’t fly either. complicated/simple english… matter of individual style (i thought this was the easier bit to figure out).
best argument against a book/story written in long winded english is an equally good book in ‘simpler’ english. so do get started on yours.
and finally, the nepali/nepalese debate. i prefer nepali. some say nepalese. one’s an english way to say it, one is the nepali way. take your pick and go to sleep.

ya, I accept that this debate over style is pointless. Language is the dress of thought. People sometimes waste their time over commenting on the dress. Perhaps we should go to the body ie thought.

However, I would request all to write in simple English so that an amatuer like me can also understand what you mean to say. Following is the formula which a friend of mine had once told me:

KISS: Keep It Simple and Short

sanjeev you seem to be under the impression that people write for your amusement. not exactly the case. if you have problems understanding certain text, maybe starting with simpler literature (like nancy drew perhaps) and working your way up might help.

I know they don’t.

That is why, I ‘requested’.

You seem to be under the impression that my argument in favor of simplicity is the result of my inability to understand difficult text.

I prefer simplicity because I think most people in today’s world (including myself) want to read stuffs which contain less swerves in style but are witty in content. Simplicity is preferred not to amuse the morons, but to make your writing lucid and enjoyable. I understand that simplicity alone does not serve this purpose. If it did, Samrat Upadhyaya’s novels would be much better than the toilet papers. I favor a combination of wit and simplicity. I know that is difficult to master, and I do not blame the writer of the above text for failing to provide me with that. We all were into a debate about simplicity, and I thought I had to make my point clear.

I would request you to go through ‘Greater Common Good’ by Arundhati which is easily available in the http://www.

PS:

I requested you to go through Arundhati’s essay not as a way of suggesting you to ‘improve your English’. I did that to support my point that simple style can also say complex things with ease.

Good points Sanjeev.
Regarding Arundhati’s essays, this one in the Guardian is pretty good too
“The algebra of infinite justice”
and so is the one titled
“How Deep Shall We Dig?” - which shows how the self proclaimed ‘biggest democracy’ in the world is functioning; it is certainly good lesson for us Nepalese (or was it Nepalis), at a time when our country is in a state of transition.

i hate salmon when cooked.

Sagar
I love them all. I once used to be a staunch Arundhati lover. I still like most of her essays, but I like GoST more than her other writing. I am glad to know that you also like Arundhati.

commedy central in samudaya…

The weeds are growing in the field.

I think the story is well written. She has used a lot of words that describe e.g. the wrinkles on skin. The description leads the reader to imagine the situation and people involved in the stroy.

Ji ne mera dil lutaya
Ji ne menu maar sutaya

Duniyo ko chori chori dil maag di
Likh di Oh Sanu chitthiyan

Ankhiyon di samune rahe tum di
Lonely lady, lady, lady Jaggu