Topic started by Kuttykarthik on Sat Nov 27 23:20:25 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
|
Nanbarkalee,
|
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Bhoori (@ c660409-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com)
on: Tue May 1 02:04:46
ϴϹ 캨. ̳ À ͳ . ( בѴ ? ׀ ր.) ב. (̪?) Ù Ϳʪ (ϴ ? , ׳ . ;-)) - , ̯ À 晐 .
̀ƴ ׀ 晐 ׯ. ՙ. ̜̿. 5-6 ϥ晐 ׀ 썀 ѹ ֍ ր . ð 썀 㴰 ̜ À ి ? , י ֍ ր 퍑 ݙ ҙ Ƴ. , ב ם.
э晍 э. ള э ˎ. ̴ ب׳ ׯ . æ ͞Ҁ ˰ ⢝ .
Once again, my apologies for the earlier posting.
- From: Ţ (@ 192.149.1.187)
on: Tue May 1 07:20:18
. θ ħ
¡¾ š.
ɡ Ƣ ؾ
츢. Ȣ ʧ Ƣ¢Ģ
š š 즸ġ. ý
Ƣ ؾ ġ.
â (?) (GRE)
â Ţ (?) (GMAT)
측 ¢츽측 š
ɾ Ȣ 츢ȡ.
Ǣ Ȣġ ܼ
ž.
Ƣ ؾ .
Ÿ : ¢, ¢, ¢.
contributor: , , , ,
š ġ.
Online Tamil Lexicon, OTL, http://www.oni-koeln.de - .
Ȣ .
- From: Mani M. Manivannan (@ cpe-24-221-181-57.ca.sprintbbd.net)
on: Wed May 2 00:41:17
Satish,
You are right, I am not an authority of modern Tamil literature. My tastes are certainly oriented towards the classical, ancient poems. I read the contemporary authors as I also select the books for the Tamil section of local libraries. Yes, I do depend on lists such as these. I also listen to the distinguished visitors and authors to the Bay area. And yes, I have read Jeyamohan (among others.)
If you question if that alone makes me qualified to criticise or be rude to Jeyamohan, the answer is no. However, the opinions expressed by Jeyamohan and the language that he has chosen are deliberately provocative and even inflammatory. In my opinion, his writings on the net sound pompous, self-important, arrogant, and pretentious. Actually, there are several writers like that who mostly write in small, obscure magazines.
The small magazines used to be Tamil's alternative press that gave voice to non-mainstream writers who thought of themselves as belonging to the avant-garde. This avant-gardism is usually accompanied by a certain arrogance and contempt for the commercial mainstream. Society usually tolerates and in some cultures even venerates such avantgardists. But that is not a license to proclaim that only they can produce literature and everything else is trash for the simpletons. Such declarations are particularly galling when accompanied by self-serving "literary criticism." Then again, Jayamohan may be playing the role of an enfant terrible just to have fun at the expense of his critics! May be if you visit his hometown he'd wink at you and over a monthai of kaLLu, would share the inside jokes. :-))
But nothing that he has written in this forum or at thinnai.com indicates that he has such a puckish sense of humor. His vitriolic attack on kONangi or the denigration of Kalki's writings belie such an expectation. He seems to believe that humility is for simpletons and that his writings require a high level of intelligence and a strong background in literature, including the classics. On the one hand he decries the lack of classical Tamil education and on the other hand he is proud to cite readers unfamiliar with even Kalki and Jeyakanthan as being among his elite group of readers. His essays are obtuse, self-contradictory and always self-serving with no flair or style. He abhors simplicity.
Simplicity in writing is but the outward sign of reflection and depth of thought. If a writer understands his subject, his writing will be simple and clear. And words are the most important assets of every writer. To quote E. M. Forster "How can I know what I think till I see what I say?" Unfortunately, Jeyamohan has a cavalier attitude towards words. His writing is full of spelling mistakes that are unpardonable, particularly in print. And his syntax looks strange to my eyes. His is a strange mixture of Tamil, English and I presume Malayalam. Of course an author can misspell and mangle syntax deliberately to good effect (see http://www.forumhub.com/stories/16576.23.06.45.html ). But it seems that Jeyamohan is even unaware of his shortcomings.
But I don't mean to pick on Jeyamohan. I think he is a promising author with an intellectual bent of mind. But somebody did him a great disservice by declaring that his "Vishnupuram" is the best of Tamil literature in a century. Now how can he do better than that? He has nowhere to go but down! When confronted by critics, his response is to insult the literary tastes of the reader and the critic. (See his preface to "Vishnupuram" and his response to Thinnai columnist Rajaram http://www.thinnai.com/ar0415012.html ). He believes that he has already produced works that can be ranked among world classics!
If I sound abusive and personal, my apologies. However, I must confess that I am a juvenile in the proximity of an overinflated balloon full of hot air. ;-))
- From: ravi sundaram (@ 192.149.1.187)
on: Wed May 2 07:06:42
§ɢ, " Ө š
Ž š측
¡ 츢 š ." ڠ
Ţ . ,
츽측 Ǣ
š , 쨸
. ɡ ,
, ¸ /츠
Ţ ŢŢ̸ ¡
ڸ. âŨ
Ũ ¢
â. ǢŢ Ģ
Ģ â (filtered samples) š.
§ɢ 츢 ŢšǠ
. Ƣ
츨 ɡ. Ȣ.
Ţ ۨ
Ө šڠ 즸
Ȣ.
- From: Satish (@ spider-we084.proxy.aol.com)
on: Wed May 2 09:06:20
Manivannan:
u confirmed what i thought abt ur modern lit reading. i also may be at the same level as u only since i've been out of india for 16 yrs. i have kept up with my reading also but u and i still may not know all. i need to correct u on one thing.u say there are small mag writers an mainstream mag writers.u take even the writers in this forum.i got to know senior writers like Pavannan and Murgan and young writers like Kanchana thru mainstream mags only. thet write in small mags also. may b in the olden days there was this little mag-big mag division.Jeyamohan classes Kalki as literature. they didn't think that in the old days. someone should tell us why they didn't
- From: jeevaa (@ 61.1.210.223)
on: Thu May 3 07:40:10
Ƣ¡ Ȣ Ȣ .Ţš . ؾ ħ ؾ¨ . š. 츢Ǣ ȢӸ . ؾ ⧠.š .. ؾɡ. . ̾¢ § Ţâ Ǣ 츢 Ģ¢츢ȡ.Ȧġ ¡ Φ âŢ.ȸ Ǣ Ţš 츢. Ţâ 츨 Ȣ ھ ɡ ȡ . ɢ¢ Ȣ ھ 츢. Ȣ § Ţâ θ. § Ţθȡ. ý § ¢ Ȣ Ţ. Ȣ š Ţâ 츧?â Ţâ ¡ ? ġ Ţ츢¡ɡ? Ţ¡? Ƣ¡ Ţ þ Ģ Ţ¡?§ ɡ ¢? . Ҹ áâ ¢츢ȡ. Ȣơ Ҿ 측 Χ Ҹ ؾ¾ ġ ɡ á ĸŢ ȡ. . Ţ 츢? ¡ ¢ Ţ Ţâš Ţš .Ģ á á Ȣ .Ȣ Ǣ쨸 Ȣ . ġ â ǡ . Ȣ Ţš Ţâ .ɡ ¡á ɡǡ? Ũ Ȣ ɢŢâ Ţ.ɡ Ȣ ɢ Ţâ . 쨸Լ ɡ.ɡ 쨸 šм ȡ. Ţ Ţ.ɡ § '' Ţ,Ũ Ȣ áθ ĢŢ.ɢ 츧 Ũ .ý [ Ȣ ĸħ Ӿ Ө¡] â § â Ţ. ¡ɡ è ?ɢ . 츢š . 츢 ȡ ç 츢š¡/? Ÿ ?.§ ġ ͺġ 츢¿ Ţ? §째 ؾ 츢,ġľ. ġ 츢 ȡ ̨? Ţȧ? ġ ġȢ ʿġ ȡ ȦƢǢ. ¢ ʸ 츽 ȡ.?§ ŧ ɺú. š . ȡ. ̦â¡.ŧ ţ á Ȣ ؾ¢츢ȡ. 츢 츢? š . Ȣ ¨ ġ Ө Ţ. ¢.츢 ʧ 츢 .Ҿ 30 Ǣ á ¢ Ũ¡ Ţ. Ǣ ¡ 츢.¡ Ģ Ȣ Ģ¢. 츢 ¡ .á . 츢 .츢Ţâ â . Ţ Ţ Ţĸ ɢ Ө¢ Ţš ӾĢ š
- From: jeevaa (@ 61.1.210.223)
on: Thu May 3 07:46:21
Ƣ¡ Ȣ Ȣ .Ţš . ؾ ħ ؾ¨ . š. 츢Ǣ ȢӸ . ؾ ⧠.š .. ؾɡ. . ̾¢ § Ţâ Ǣ 츢 Ģ¢츢ȡ.Ȧġ ¡ Φ âŢ.ȸ Ǣ Ţš 츢. Ţâ 츨 Ȣ ھ ɡ ȡ . ɢ¢ Ȣ ھ 츢. Ȣ § Ţâ θ. § Ţθȡ. ý § ¢ Ȣ Ţ. Ȣ š Ţâ 츧?â Ţâ ¡ ? ġ Ţ츢¡ɡ? Ţ¡? Ƣ¡ Ţ þ Ģ Ţ¡?§ ɡ ¢? . Ҹ áâ ¢츢ȡ. Ȣơ Ҿ 측 Χ Ҹ ؾ¾ ġ ɡ á ĸŢ ȡ. . Ţ 츢? ¡ ¢ Ţ Ţâš Ţš .Ģ á á Ȣ .Ȣ Ǣ쨸 Ȣ . ġ â ǡ . Ȣ Ţš Ţâ .ɡ ¡á ɡǡ? Ũ Ȣ ɢŢâ Ţ.ɡ Ȣ ɢ Ţâ . 쨸Լ ɡ.ɡ 쨸 šм ȡ. Ţ Ţ.ɡ § '' Ţ,Ũ Ȣ áθ ĢŢ.ɢ 츧 Ũ .ý [ Ȣ ĸħ Ӿ Ө¡] â § â Ţ. ¡ɡ è ?ɢ . 츢š . 츢 ȡ ç 츢š¡/? Ÿ ?.§ ġ ͺġ 츢¿ Ţ? §째 ؾ 츢,ġľ. ġ 츢 ȡ ̨? Ţȧ? ġ ġȢ ʿġ ȡ ȦƢǢ. ¢ ʸ 츽 ȡ.?§ ŧ ɺú. š . ȡ. ̦â¡.ŧ ţ á Ȣ ؾ¢츢ȡ. 츢 츢? š . Ȣ ¨ ġ Ө Ţ. ¢.츢 ʧ 츢 .Ҿ 30 Ǣ á ¢ Ũ¡ Ţ. Ǣ ¡ 츢.¡ Ģ Ȣ Ģ¢. 츢 ¡ .á . 츢 .츢Ţâ â . Ţ Ţ Ţĸ ɢ Ө¢ Ţš ӾĢ š
List all pages of this thread