Just Another Woman

re bina

i like the way you pat your own back (or is it pennies?) :)

okay, so ms. shamim can write in any style she wants. phew.

i disagree that `the experiment`/`lifelong suspicion` are more `dramatic`. maybe you should pay more attention to your editors. just another woman works exactly because of the reason you say it doesnt.

i must have been on mars when reading the replies sections on chowk. i thought the `howling` has mostly been about content and style. some of us behave badly and attack the author. unfair to the writer, yes, i can understand. unfair to the reader? hmmmm. has ms. shamim been plagiarizing or giving false references? please explain what you mean by `unfair to the reader` in this context.

i wait for more enriching pennies.

Annie Shamim:

I like the way you are taking sides between your supporters and your critics. It is a measure of your depth of intellect and there is a lesson in it for us all. Nicely done :).

Saad

Re Bina Reply 48

``To say, many comments later, that this ``could`` be fiction and Sheila ``could`` be a cousin, but not yours, is a little unfair to the reader!``

Bina, I don`t know if you have been following the discussion thread from the start. Anne`s Reply 44, to which you refer, was actually a tongue in cheek response to the persistent carping about style and identity of characters. She is not trying to have it both ways, merely illustrating the pointlessness of the nitpickers. She made certain choices in writing the story, in order to make a point. People who don`t agree with the point are deconstructing the piece as if it were a submission for the Creative Feminist Writer of the Year competition.

Yeah, we have some smart intelligent people writing on Chowk, and they can be critics, but lets all step back and stop taking things so seriously! I personally think all this ferment is healthy and views from every perspective enrich us all, especially if they stretch our own values and beliefs. I much prefer this to the previous air of self-congratulatory backslapping.

Re Anita

Noticed the tag-team approach early on as a reader; made a passing comment recently as random. Since it is fairly obvious I wouldn`t be surprised if other people have commented on it. Do continue your writing - it gives everyone a lot of `material` to work with.

Shafqat: Finally! Finally something nice from you!! Thanks, bud--appreciate your thoughts. As I said earlier, it`s imperative that there be honesty in evaluation of a work (even if it hurts to the core), because the alternative is too damaging for the overall advancement of art/science/anything. However, HOW it`s done--tone, attitude, sincerity, focus, evaluator`s credibility--are equally important to the cause.

--AS

BG:

No one said she wasn`t free to write in journalistic style. She is free to write in ``journalistic`` style, ``fiction`` style, or ``George-of-the-Jungle`` style if she wants. I was merely remarking that the flat, matter-of-fact tone she adopts confuses the reader a bit as to whether her piece is fact or fiction or both.

Not that ``The Experiment`` or ``Lifelong Suspicions`` are such great choices; merely more dramatic ones. My editors will tell you that I am ridiculously bad at coming up with titles myself, so I can sympathize. But ``Just Another Woman`` glosses over the seriousness of her topic.

If there was no such thing as being ``unfair to the reader`` we`d never have Chowkwallahs howling the way they do in the Replies sections to many of the pieces here on Chowk.

Where do I keep finding all these pennies from!

re random

ouch ouch ouch. very funny

re bina

i may not be as critical a reader as you, given that i am neither a journalist nor a writer, but i still want voice my disagreement with your criticism. (no offence intended)

i dont know if the story was written in a `journalistic style` or not. in any case, my understanding is that anyone is free to write fiction in whatever `style` they want, even a `journalistic style`. if we didnt experiement and push the envelope, we might still all be writing like thomas hardy or dickens.

secondly, even before having read the disclaimer, i figured somewhere in the middle of the story that it was a story based on real events and people, but changed around to ensure privacy. i mean, who else but a half-wit would put personal letters and details of their family`s lives on chowk -- which is pretty well-known and widely read amongst pakistanis. there was no unfairness to the reader. also, what does that mean really -- unfair to the reader????

the title ``just another woman`` works much much better than ``an experiment`` or ``lifelong suspicion``.

regards

Re : BG.

And an equally powerful rejoinder, BG.

Rishi

Re : Bina.

Very profound analyses. And valuable inputs too

Your 2(nth power) cents were worthy

Rishi

Re: Zaidi

``I am a humanist first, a physician second, a feminist third, which I guess rules out a knee-jerk support for the woman in this story in the absence of sufficient data``

However, the abuse that Sheila does receive from her husband cannot be ignored Dr. Zaidi. I believe that a humanist (if that`s what you really are) has to have some grain of sympathy for her plight and support her efforts at divorce. If the man refused medical treatment, what other option does she have?

Re: Zaidi

``The way this particular story is written, it implies fact. I certainly read it as fact.``

Re: Bina

``There was a lot more you could have done with language, as well as the presentation of the story, the characters etc. if you wanted this to come across as fiction.``

Dr. Zaidi and Bina bring up some excellent criticisms on the amateurish nature of the piece. Yes, it doesn`t do a very good job of hiding itself from reality and is a bit uncomfortable. However, in some ways that`s the charm of this piece. It`s not well-manufactured or polished, but partially raw. Dr. Zaidi herself has written an excellent piece which she subtitled as a ``story from her imagination`` which if read a different way (without the italics or that subtitle) might actually appear as fact. And who knows, maybe it is, but that is for the reader to guess. Anne Shamim`s piece doesn`t leave us much room for guessing which is somewhat distressing as pointed out earlier. By the way, the URL for Dr. Zaidi`s excellent *fictional * piece:

http://chowk.com/LeafyGlade/Victorian/azaidi_oct2798.html

aapka dost,

Pat Shah

Bina: Thank you for your intelligent commentary. And a BIGGER thank you for your civil tone. Most of your points are well-taken. If you`d like, I can discuss this with you in further detail via email: annogul@hotmail.com

I`m not going to comment on all the issues that are being raised here (don`t boo me!). Fascinating as the debate is, I read this piece twice and want to comment on the style.

First, Anne, I think the piece is well-written; you have a good command over sentence structure and say what you want to say cleanly, quickly, simply.

However, it is this matter-of-fact style that makes me think this is journalism, not fiction. Fiction usually has many devices - imagery, metaphors, allusions, foreshadowing (reminds me of 7th grade English class) - which you have left out. Opting for the journalistic style makes me feel that these are real events, even if you have changed names and some of the circumstances. There was a lot more you could have done with language, as well as the presentation of the story, the characters etc. if you wanted this to come across as fiction. To say, many comments later, that this ``could`` be fiction and Sheila ``could`` be a cousin, but not yours, is a little unfair to the reader!

At the same time, it feels like your narrator - you, fictional narrator, whatever - is even more two-dimensional than the other characters. Indeed, ``you`` are merely reacting, and might I say in very predictable ways, to Sheila`s situation. Simple anger was probably justified under the circumstances, but I as a reader would have been very interested in the narrator`s personal dilemma when considering the events. Did ``you`` really just think it was an open-shut case of sexual dysfunction? Didn`t ``you`` have any thoughts about the predicament of the man as well? Not that these thoughts had to be voiced to Sheila - the primary goal was to get her out of the marriage - but it would have been more interesting in a story to see what prejudices and conflicts this stirred up in the narrator herself.

The ending is ruined by the last line: ``And life goes on as usual.`` What does this mean? You have not defined ``usual`` or ``unusual`` so the phrase makes no sense in the context of the rest of the story. Try to avoid cliches like that - they are easy to resort to but are the death blow to any good piece - your writing will become much more powerful as a result.

Finally, I think that the title of the piece ``Just Another Woman`` does great injustice to the whole message of the story. This title implies the mundane, the ordinary, the unextraordinary, whereas you are trying to highlight Sheila and her struggle as something special, something to be taken notice of. I know ``Just Another Woman`` is trying to be ironic, but in my opinion, it doesn`t work. Perhaps something more dramatic like ``The Experiment`` or ``Lifelong Suspicions`` would match the high expectations that you set in the body of the story itself.

Well,I think that you could expand this piece and make it something great. But the way it stands, it ``skirts superficialities`` and ultimately avoids dealing directly with some of the issues you raise. This has all the potential of being a powerful psychological piece, but I feel that you have underestimated the reader and delivered less than you could have!

My 2 (to the nth power) cents.
-Bina

Articles like these are the best reason for
having CHOWK.

Ras

hey SR! how`s the bundle of joy and sunshine? (sorry for the tangent, annogul)

i think we have all had enough of dr. zaidi`s absolutely ridiculous tirades. why does everthying have to be reduced to medical this and therapy that? enough, madam. and enough already about your privacy concerns too. if the author is taking that risk, let her deal with the consequences too. we don`t need a nagging finger-shaking reprimanding net mommy, thank you very much.

RE: Anne Shamim,

In case my point was lost in the rambling, the reason that some of us are reacting so, Ms. Shamim, is that you have us confused - is this journalism (in which case your personal bias should be minimized - just report the events, and you`ll be excused the superficial nature of reporting, given the absence of more facts), or is it a story, in which case you can say whatever you want. You haven`t made it clear, and seem to want it both ways. If it is a story, its a pity that you haven`t enriched the characters more than you did and tell us why Qaiser was so - instead of just labeling him as `bad`.

Additionally, you seem to have a lot of biases against people with sexual dysfuntion, who you seem to think are all bad. If you consider sexual dysfunction as being equivalent to any other type of disease which is stigmatized, such as mental illness, you could perhaps understand why someone with this problem may become morose and emotionally manipulative. We do not know if he was impotent before he got married. The only evidence you present is the letter, which since we don`t know what is fact, and what fiction, we can`t judge the significance of.

As it stands, either way, it reflects badly on you. If the letter is real, you had no business taking someone`s private correspondence and putting it on the web. If it isn`t, you haven`t told us anything significant that suggests the sexual dysfunction was a pre-existing problem. So which is it?


Re: Random

I am amused that Saad`s and my `alliance` bothers you so, and apparently for a while too. Your musings seem familiar. Have you been around these parts under a different name before? If so, why change mid-course?

Anita