Topic started by Kuttykarthik on Sat Nov 27 23:20:25 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
|
Nanbarkalee,
|
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: P.N.Kumar (@ ip25-58.cbn.net.id)
on: Sun Apr 22 04:38:50
§ Ž!
; Ǣ ţ ¡ ɡ - ռ ¢ ĸ , ¡ Ţ Ҿ. â ŦȾ, 츢š?
- From: jeyamohanb (@ 61.1.210.176)
on: Sun Apr 22 12:22:31
Manee ,Dr chellappaa iraNdu nuulaKAl vanthuLLana.Evaiyumee ippoothu kidaippathu illai
- From: Bhoori (@ c660409-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com)
on: Sun Apr 22 17:38:38
æր ת ϙ. .
ƱϹ ϙ 鍀 鴰 ̑ ϙ . ϙ 㑍 ͺ 갑 ͎. ̙ . Ϲ .
ґ ґ р Ͽ ׀ ͙̑ ϳ. ( ׀ ґ р ׀ ϙґ. ׳ ͟ ɛ?) , /ґ ր. ి ґ ґ р ? Ѣ/ 100 % .
晐 ˪ 鑍 Ͽ . ׀ ҙ ҿ Ùƴ ݙ ϳ. .
ѹ Ϲэ. ϳ.
̛晐 . Ͽ
- From: Bhoori (@ c660409-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com)
on: Sun Apr 22 17:42:29
æր ת ϙ. .
ƱϹ ϙ 鍀 鴰 ̑ ϙ . ϙ 㑍 ͺ 갑 ͎. ̙ . Ϲ .
ґ ґ р Ͽ ׀ ͙̑ ϳ. ( ׀ ґ р ׀ ϙґ. ׳ ͟ ɛ?) , /ґ ր. ి ґ ґ р ? Ѣ/ 100 % .
晐 ˪ 鑍 Ͽ . ׀ ҙ ҿ Ùƴ ݙ ϳ. .
ѹ Ϲэ. ϳ.
̛晐 . Ͽ
- From: jeyamohan (@ 61.1.210.231) on: Tue Apr 24 12:07:35
ɢ¢ ¢ ȡ Ȣ ġ ɡľ . ɸǢ Ţ .Ȣ , ġ. о.ɢ¢ Ȣ .
ɡ 츢 츢 ̨ Ţ. ȡ ɿ žɡ 츢 ̨ŧ¢.. Ũ¢ , . â ġ ţ Ţ [ á ] ܼ ʧ¾ .áʺ ĸ ̨ Ţ ġ .ɡ ¡ .¡ . ɧ ؾЧ[ 1991] ɡš Ҹ ȧ ġ 쾢 ž . Ȣ Īɾ . ǨŢ ɡ츢 о . Ī ţ .
- From: Kanchana (@ ac8972b0.ipt.aol.com) on: Wed Apr 25 20:50:27
. §ɢ '' Ȣ ɸ
. Ȣ Ҹ Ţâ ,
Ţâ ȢŢ Ţ.
Ǣ ġ, 측 ,
'ɢ¢ ' Ȣ ̾ Ţ¢ θ.
[ ]
ӾĢ¡â ġ. ... Ţ
Ţǿ ǢĢ ţƢ Ҹ
ţâ . Ҹ Ţ Ƣ¡
. .... ŢǢ ̽ ҸǢ
Ţ ǡ . .
м â . š 츣
á ¡ Ţ, Ҩ ب¡
Ȣ ը .
*
š , 셡 ¡ Ȣ
ؾ , Ǣ ġ ¨
Ȣ Ţ츢ȡ. ý 'Ÿ¢ '
á½ . ը Ҩɸ¢ Ģ
á â š
ġ. ¢ šǢ ɨ š츢 Ţ ڸ
Ȣ , š θ Ģ
¢ ʧ Ȣɡ. š ɾĢ
â ¡ Ţ Ҹ š츢¾
ý о. ը á
츢 Ţâš á ġ.
*
Ţâ ' ' Ţâ
ɢ¢ ɢ ¡ȡ. Ţâš , ȡ
ɢ, Ǣ â Ţ
. Ģ š 츣 ž.....Ҩɸ¢
Ҩ ġ Ţ ͨŸ ɢ ը
θ.... ը â
š ּ ž; Ģ ǢǢ ٨
쨻 .
*
Ţ â Ӿ¡. ۼ
Ģ . ɢ¢ ɢ ' Ӿ'
¡ ú šâ Ǣ . šâ ¡
Ҩ ȡ Ţ, Ũ š
. Ҩ
Ţ θ. ܼ ¢
츨 Ţ ž.
Ƣ áá 측 úŢ
Ǣ â â
ը . 측 ʨ
áɢ ' ' Ӹ ¨ Ƣɢ
ġ. ɡ, â--Ţǡ Ţм
Ţ -- ž ¢ ? .
ը š Ҩ.
Ţ.
*
ž 츨
ڸ. .... , θ Ч Ȣ
Ģ θ. ŢƸǢ þ
ɡ Ǣš ̽. .... ĺ
Ȣ ҿǢ ۼ .
ɡ ؾ
. ɧ
ۼǡ Ȣ Ţ ġ.
츾 ¡ Ţ
¡ ....... Ţ
Өи. Ţ ¾â
ڸǢ þ . ɧ
ۼǡ ¡. Ţ Ţ â
¡š ¡š Ţħ
.
*
á½ ¢ ҸǢ .
¢ Ţ Ȣ ɢ Ţ
θȡ. ɢ ɢ ý (-
â). ɢ Ƣɢ á.
, š źġ ܼ, θ
. Ģ
ɦȡ, Ţ θ â 츨Ǣ
ǡ ǡ Ħ,
츨 ܼ . ŢǢ
ġ Ţħ ŢǢ
츢 â .
*
ġ š츢 Ţ è Ţ
ɡħ 츨 Ţâš
. ţ Ҹ
. ɧž Ƣ츢 츢 ̾--
Ш Ӿ Ũ--̃ šǡ
츽 . ..... 츨 Ƣ¡
Ҽ Ǹ Ţи . Ƣ츢
̾. Ţ Ƣ츢
ӨȨ š츢 ¡.
*
ţ Ƣ츢 Шɢ ɡ ơ Ţ
ި Ȣ Ⱦɡħ
Ȣ .
ȡ š â 츢 Ţ¡
ڸ Ĩ Ǣ Ţ Шɢ ¡
Ţ. Ш ڸ. ý ,
ý տĸǢ Ţ è ϸ. Ţ
âĨ ȡ ġ
Ţ.
*
츨 Ȣ ξɢ .
ġ ̦ɢ Ţ
. Ţ š
¡.
Ȣ: §ɢ '' (1995), . 47-55
- From: Bhoori (@ synvpn.synplicity.com) on: Wed Apr 25 22:50:07
First of all, please excuse me for writing in English.
I have been raised on a steady diet of Kumudam, Vikatan etc. The serials have heavily influenced my reading habits. And it has always bugged me that the "popular" works have never gotten any credit. Granted that most of them are not worthy of any notice; but there are a few which went beyong the shackles imposed by the serial format in a weekly.
On the other hand, the western tradition seemed to respect "great" literature like Moby D_ick and All Quite on the Western World. But the "romances" of Poe, D_ickens etc. too were highly respected. A typical English literature course would probably have a D_ickens element. Why D_ickens, even the hardboiled mysteries of Hammett and Chandler were seen as literary acheivements; Three Musketeers is a must read juvenile literature. I mean, Pather Panchali is a great movie; but I enjoyed Aayiratthil Oruvan as well. It really bugged me that critics always talked about Manikkodi tradition and obscure authors like G. Nagarajan and did not accord due recognition to works like Ponniyin Selvan. The critics seemed to have a contemptuous disregard for all works that have the "taint" of an author who regularly writes for popular Tamil magazines. I personally consider Ponniyin Selvan art - and I beleive that nobody can fail to see the great craftmanship that has gone into that plot.
When I saw the D_ickens vs Doestovsky discussion in this thread, I felt the old irritation welling up again. But Shri Jeyamohans lucid explanation of the good and bad points of Po. Selvan hit the nail on its head. I was in close agreement with Shri Jeyamohans analysis. He had also mentioned in passing an article that he had published in thinnai. I managed to dig up past issues of thinnai and find his article. It was exciting to see an attempt that tries to place the popular works in the critics pantheon.
I also counted the number of books that I had read in his list. In his top 10 list, I had read Oru Puliya Maratthin Kathai, Moha Mul, J.J. Sila Kurippukkal and Thalaimuraigal and I had categorized all 4 as must reads. (The complete list of Shri Jeyamohan was: Vishnupuram, Pin Thodarum Nizhalin Kural, Puyalile Oru Thoni, Oru Puliya Maratthin Kathai, Moha Mul, Poitthevu, J.J. Sila Kurippukkal, Thalaimuraikal, Krishnap Parundhu, Manudam Vellum) While I wouldnt put Thalaimuraikal in my top 10, I would and did place the other 3 in my top 10. It looked like our judgements have something in common.
Then I counted the number of books in his top 45 list. I had read 11 of them. Except for Pratapa Mudaliar Saritthiram, I would put the other 10 in a must read list. Pratapa Mudaliar makes several lists just because it is the first novel. IMO, it is a dud - as interesting as say, Tom Jones. I would suggest that this should go to his second list of novels; important works but not complete successes. I had read very few of the second list but I think that Vekkai, by brilliantly describing the affection between father and son in the context of a murder, should merit a place in top 10.
The section that really excited me was his "romances" list. While I am thrilled with his attempt, let me record my objections too. I feel that several duds had made the list - in the Pratapa Mudaliar sense. It looks like Shri Jeyamohan went like "okay, this author should be represented - what are his/her best works?" e.g. Sandilyans Jala Dheepam??? My primary reaction when I was reading Jala Dheepam was "Why does Sandilyan waste so many pages?" I remember that especially about the second part - where Idhaya Chandran captures a British ship and a white woman tries to seduce him. I think she seduces him for around 200 pages. Or take Mannan Magal for example - for 3/4ths of the book, nothing happens. And then in the last quarter, they go via Andhra, Orissa and Bengal to reach Ganges. IMO, the only ones that qualify without question are Kadal Pura and Yavana Rani. In the historical romances section, I have read only Kalki and Sandilyan.
The social romances too suffer from this defect. Again, I had not read even 50 % of the books he had listed. But books like Thyga Bhoomi, Professor Mithra, Kurinji Malar, Washingtonil Thirumanam, Aayiratthoru Appusami Iravugal, Mr. Vedhantham, Priya etc. should not make this list. I read Professor Mithra and Kurinji Malar only 2 years back. I would fight very strongly against the inclusion of these duds in any list. Thyaga Bhoomi reads like a film script. Perhaps Shri Jeyamohan has been guided by the popularity enjoyed by these works when they were originally published. Or perhaps he wants to drive a point by the yawning gulf in quality between the average "romance" and the average good novel. (Just kidding)
I do realize that lists like this are heavily subjective. The fact that would I include Kala Veli in my top 10 list and it doesnt find a place in any of Shri Jeyamohans list is good proof of this. But if we dont argue about subjective judgements, what will we argue about? ;-)
- From: Mani M. Manivannan (@ cpe-24-221-181-57.ca.sprintbbd.net) on: Thu Apr 26 03:47:55
ɡ,
ɢ¢ Ȣ §ɢ 츨 ¾ Ȣ. šâ¡ ġ Ȣɡ ŨǢ Ƹ . Ũ Ģ츢. Ţ ' (측 ɢ) ڨ , Ţ 'ɨ šǡ? "â, " ̽ ţ ? ɡ ? ɡ, á¡â Ũ ɡ , â¡ 측 ؾ ġ.
ɢ¢ Ũ áâ ּ ¡. ġ Ţ ġ âθ. š Ƣ Ũ¢ š ¢츢. ġ Ǣ â ɦȡ, , , â š Ģ¢ Ȩ¡ . Ƣ¢ â츢 ǡ Ҹ ġȢ Ģ¢ Ȩ ġ.
측, , ġ ɡ Ģ ġ ɢ â¡ â ǡ . Ģ, 즸ġ , ¢, ɢ â "" ? Ҩ ?
â츢 ¡á ž Χ . պ , Ȣ Ȣ, ¢ , Ģ Ȣ ɢ¢ġ Ţš; ̨¡ â , Ȣ ȺȢ âǢ 츢. ɡ, ƢҸǢ ( ܼ) "." պ 츢 á վ θȡ. 캢 . Ƣ Ţ, ¢ ؾɡ Ȩ ġ "Ģ " " " Ǣ ȢŢ.
ؾ¨ š â Ţ ̨ 즸 . Ǣ Ţ¡ ¡է â ¡ Ҹ â츢 ȡ. Ģ ø Ǣ ¡. , , Ǣ , ͨ¡ Ģ Ģ θ.
- From: jeyamohan (@ 61.1.210.231) on: Tue Apr 24 12:07:35
List all pages of this thread