Punching Bag

nice piece of work, although the ending was quite predictable, anyway keep on it, you will get even better inshallah :) as its there in you

JagDeCAt #45: ``But the way you`re harping on and on about Ghalib and Shakespeare and saying that they just had a good control over the English language, is making me wonder how much of them you`ve studied or if you have, if you even understood.``

Shakespeare, I have not studied as much as I should. Most of my study of him is through second-hand reviews. Ghalib, I have probably now studied far more than you or most people on this site. I have gone through line by line of the translated version of every single Urdu verse he wrote. And have read quite a few of his biographies. Having said that, I cannot understand any of his Persian poetry. And it takes me a while to understand his Urdu verses in Urdu, since they are so complicated. But I think I have struggled through successfully.

What I am, ``harping on,`` about is not that Ghalib and Shakespeare were great writers because they, ``just had control over`` language. Quite the contrary. What I am stating is that they had such great control over language that they did not need to rely on any ideas, if they didn`t want to. A part of Ghalib`s poetry, is infact, just verses about waiting for his, ``mehboob.`` A very simplistic idea, which he repeats in so many ghazals, yet each is more interesting that the next. Primarily because of his authority over the language. Of course, when he brings in new philosophical ideas, then his verses become untouchable (in a good sense).

Ghalib and Shakespeare are two of the very few writers who are above and beyond ideas. Without ideas, they are great and with them even greater. The rest of us need a great idea, due to our limitations in language. Simple form and balance will not do it for us.

You have mentioned a list of writers who will be around long after Bob Dylan and John Lennon. This is probably correct. But how many such writers and poets are there. How many Kiplings and Eliots and Miltons are there. Barely a handful. At the same time, in any one generation, there are hundreds, if not thousands of, ``established and published`` writers and poets with perfect Ph.D. trained, ``form and balance and technique.`` Nearly all of whom will be dwarfed by the Bob Dylans and Lennons.

P.S. I found Fitzgerald`s translation of the Odyssey to be the best one. But I am sure a lot is lost in the translation. If you ever get a chance, do watch the few, ``expeditions`` on video that were carried out to discover how much of the Odyssey was based on actual places, islands etc.

Romair,

One, i agree with you that the idea is the most powerful part of any story.

Two, i also agree that you dont` need a degree in English Lit. to write.

But the way you`re harping on and on about Ghalib and Shakespeare and saying that they just had a good control over the English language, is making me wonder how much of them you`ve studied or if you have, if you even understood. Someone once told me that if you wish to learn about life & human psychology, read Shakespeare. One person even said that his plays were almost like the Quran. Now if you dont` go into hysterics, it just meant that they were damn accurate in what they portrayed. THe human psyche, the emotional flows, everything.

If someone wants to learn metaphysics, philosophy, Religion, and again Human Behavior, than you should read Ghalib.

Now what you`re proposing is that great writers are born not made. I don`t have a problem with that statement. However, please remember that people like Shakespeare, Lord Byron, Emily Bronte, Jane Austen, Thackery, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, Joyce (the most acclaimed writer of our CENTURY), and many more, will live forever in the annals of history. They`ve been dead for so long and people still love their work. I`m not sure about any of our current writers. Try reading the iliad or The Odyssey by Homer. That`s the power of good form, and idea which combines for great writing.

Only time will test how long this phase of Bob Dylan, and Beatles will live for and their obsession with `Ain`t`. (Note: I am a Beatles / Bob Dylan/ Bob Marley/ etc etc fan). Oh!! i`m not sure if you`re into Jazz, but try listening to `Lullaby of Birdland`. It was written in 10 minutes over a steak. It`s supposed to be amongst the best works of Jazz ever produced.

And just a footnote: Anyone can write. Not everyone can be a writer.

Saminashah #41: Spoken like a true English teacher :-)

`` I am separating poetry from song lyrics.``

Song lyrics are the most powerful form of poetry of our generation. If it isn`t poetry, then exactly what is it? Obviously it is poetry. It isn`t traditional poetry, based on perfect form and grammar. But it is very powerful. Why? Because it catches the imagination of the reader due to its powerful ideas.

Everyone knows Bob Dylan and Lennon. I doubt too many know the non-songwriter, ``poets`` of our generation.

``Since the percentage of writers is higher among the teaching prof than the rest, logically, the percentage of ``successful`` writers is higher.``

Are you sure? Do take a look at the top writers of our time. Were they all trained academically in the English language (or any language). Take a look at the best writers on this site. How many of them studied English? Take a look at the one or two good writers Pakistan has produced and the one or two journalists who can write good English from Pakistan. Amongst Urdu poets, how many studied Urdu, or taught it. Faiz taught English and studied it. Iqbal studied law and philosophy. Etc.

Do take a survey of the Booker prize winners of recent years. Arundhati studied architecture. Bainbridge worked as an actress. Rushdie studied history and then worked as an actor. Kelman left school at an early age, then briefly studied philosophy. Martel studied philosophy.

Barnes was academically and professionally in literature. Urnsworth is another one who studied English. Ondatjee studied and taught English. Cotzee studied and taught English, though his first profession was with a computer company.

As you can see, the non-academically trained writers probably outnumber the academically trained ones.

``Ideas are powerful, but so is language. Language is no less powerful than ideas, imho.``

Ideas are far more powerful than language. Language is just a medium. A powerful idea in average language will still attract attention. An average idea in powerful language will only attract attention if the langauge standard is that of Shakepeare or Ghalib.

Hey Sunny...just a question...in the beginning of the story, if Adnan is asleep then how does he manage to sms his wife?

LOL!
God! Im laffing my head of nhk!
Why wud u be worried about she made out :P

Hehe...I aggree with that NAtional Anthem part though ;)

Romair,

For the clarification of discussion:

1. I am separating poetry from song lyrics.

2. Not everyone who teaches, wants to write. Most people I know who teach, do write. And many writers I know, teach. As opposed to computer software people or engineers.

3. Since the percentage of writers is higher among the teaching prof than the rest, logically, the percentage of ``successful`` writers is higher. Btw, my def. of success is a well written, thought provoking text.

3. Many poets find the tension b/n the explosion of idea and creativity and adhering to strict form exhiliarating. Not ``better`` than free verse, but producing a different bounty and a different process. Look at John Donne and compare him with Anne Carson.

4. Grammar isnt the quibble here. In fact, most writers having learned the rules break them intentionally.

5. Ideas are powerful, but so is language. Language is no less powerful than ideas, imho. And when I mean language, I dont mean reams of words, I mean preciseness. The right words. The clearest images.

6. Language consists of ideas.

Saminashah #; As I said, if one can become an expert in form and balance, one will become a good grammar teacher. But never an inspirational poet, songwriter or author. This is not to say that form and balance etc. are not important. But they are definitely not the main factors behind successful authors. Otherwise, every person with a Ph.D. in English, Urdu or Punjabi would be an excellent author or poet. Yet very few are.

This is what separates liguistic expression from say research and development in the comp. science field. You will find very very few people doing R&D in comp. sci who do not have a Ph.D. in this field or a closely related field. Yet you will find so many writer and poets who never studied literature. The reason is that R&D is based on exact mathematical, ``form.`` It is not based on a theme or compassion or emotion etc. For software to compile, it requires 100% perfection. But a 100%, ``correct`` expression may be inferior to a grammatically weak, but emotionally greater idea.

John Lennon wrote, ``Imagine`` in a couple of hours in a morning. It is considered one of the best written works of our time. People know it far more than they know the work of any English degree holder`s writings. Bob Dylan used the word, ``Ain`t`` and other grammatical irregularaties in all his songs, including Like a Rolling Stone, yet he is the greatest protest lyricist in the history of the USA.

This is how creativity works. The best actors are not the ones who have a degree from the UCLA school of dramatics. They have a natural talent. Similarly the best poets have this quality. I mentioned a few names to you. If one can hit upon a good idea, then the words don`t even really matter.

Faiz wrote, ``Bol, kay labb azaad hain teray.`` After this line, he could have written any kind of verses to complete the poem, it would have still been a classic. Why? Because he hit upon the idea of, ``Speaking,`` even if all other faculties have been destroyed or captured. And captured it in one line. Bulleh Shah wrote, ``Masjid dha dae, madir dha day......`` People don`t even know what the exact wording is. But it doesn`t matter, because the idea is so powerful.

So, as I said, academically speaking, balance and grammar and form are the most important things. But that just produces good professors. Not popular literature or poems. That requires powerful ideas.

In fact, the only poets I know of in Urdu who had such control over words that they did not require bold ideas, were Ghalib, Mir and a couple of others. They could write about the most simplistic of boring things and still make it interesting, due to their control over their words. Nearly everyone else, is popular because of ideas. Poetry and words are just the vehicles for the ideas; with or without form. Iqbal had excellent form, but would he be known if he did not talk about the philosophies of Shaheen and Khudi etc. Is Faiz known for Bol and Hum Dekhain Gay, or is he known for his run of the mill romantic poetry (however balanced it maybe)?

also Romair,

form as in poetic-why do we like rhyme so much? The human brain responds to complex kinds of repetition. Hence the ghazal.

Romair,

Any poet worth her/his salt will have learned and practice form. Fiction writers may have more wiggle room, but I`ve attended writing lectures in which a fairly good writer explains her/his system of constructing a story/novel. It`s usually methodical and runs by well known writing principles. I know of very few people who throw it up the air and leave it to chance. Elizabeth Bishop would tape a poem on the wall and would not take it down until it was ``finished``. Sometimes that took years.

Many writers like to act as if what they write is effortless, a divine inspired moment. But the truth is it takes hard work and a great deal of revision to find the text submerged beneath the surfaces the writer renders in those first moments. This is basic composition principle, btw. And alot of that process has to do with discipline and knowing form.

Sunny

You were nicely building up a good thriller - I almost suspected you to be Maria.

With clever observant Maasi lurking around - and the chatter-box preacher Fozia who knew too much.

But then you lost nerve - and came up with a goody-goody tame ending. (flag & national anthem type)

I wonder after that Shock, how Maria could make out in the hotel room.

nhk

Saminashah #35: ``Writing, like children, are best if they are raised with discipline, form, intelligence, imagination and compassion.

Otherwise you end up with brats: entertaining the first day, but trying after that.``

I would tend to disagree with parts of this. Some, probably a majority, of the best writers, and especially poets/songwriters, show only average form or discipline in their writing. They do show a lot of imagination and compassion, however. It is the later that makes a popular writer, and especially a songwriter/poet.

When I look at the famous poets/songwriters (in Urdu, English, Punjabi; three languages that I understand), it seems as though the best ones weren`t popular because of the discipline and form. Quite the contrary, some of the greatest English songs, are filled with grammatical mistakes. They were popular because of the theme and idea behind what they wrote.

Discipline, form and grammatical perfectness can result in a person becoming a good high school English teacher. But it can only rarely result in becoming a powerful writer or poet. This is probably why some of the greatest writers and poets never studied or practiced literature as a profession.

There are thousands of English degree holders in India, but out of the four most acclaimed Indian English writers today (Rushdie, Lahiri, Roy, and Mistry), only two studied English. Roy studie architecture, and Mistry studied math and economics.

The greatest Urdu poets that we claim to be, ``Pakistani,`` are probably Iqbal, Faiz and Parveen Shakir. Iqbal studied law, Faiz was in the Army, and Shakir was in the Civil Services (albiet she studied and taught Urdu earlier).

The best English Pakistani writer, in my opinion, Mohsin Hamid, is a lawyer.

People are rarely attracted to discipline and form. Only someone extremely exceptional like Shakespeare or Ghalib can have so much control over a language, where they can just attract through words alone, without a powerful idea. For the rest, the idea is what does it. People read Faiz, because of his marxist/activist ideas, which were expressed through his poetry. Iqbal, because of his philosophies. Shakir because she expressed the view of a female in somewhat of a feminist point of view.

Bulleh Shah is read, not because of the text of his Punjabi verses. But because of the idea behind them. In fact, people aren`t even sure about the exact text of many of his works. They are definitely sure about his ideas, though. Bob Dylan, John Lennon, and Paul McCartney - three of the greatest English, ``poets`` of our time - wrote lyrics that would get a, ``D`` in a college test. Yet they are legendary. Because they grabbed a powerful idea, expressed it in one line, after which they could have written the worst grammer, it wouldn`t have mattered.

It is the idea, the theme, and the compassion that counts. Not the mathemtical combination of verbs, adverbs and preposition, combined with lenghts and balances.

Malik,

Writing, like children, are best if they are raised with discipline, form, intelligence, imagination and compassion.

Otherwise you end up with brats: entertaining the first day, but trying after that.

The point I had brought up was not that people`s work should not be critiqued. Obviously, it should be. Otherwise, no one will ever improve.

What I was pointing out were the characteristics of the, ``critic,`` and the extent to which the critic should limit him/herself. Every job definition has a certain set of qualifications. Being a critic of something probably has the highest set of qualifications. Because, a critic is claiming expertise above and beyond the expertise of doing the job. It is like not only being a pilot, but being a flying instructor.

Obviously every Tom, Dick and Haroon cannot claim to be a flying instructor. Nor can they claim to be a critic. If they become self-proclaimed critics, then there is nothing to stop them. But they will end up doing more harm to others` work, than good. They need to first establish themselves as experts or at least, ``well above average`` in their work. They should not just claim this status by making, ``fancy`` statements about other people`s writing. Anyone can do that. I have always found that quite fake and arrogant (even if well-intentioned).

I personally think, in the absence of a track record of good writing, one should limit one`s observations to an abstract level. If fifty people, who have some idea of writing English but are not experts, say something was good, then it was probably good. However, if three people, who only have some idea of writing English, start commenting on the details of flow and balance and depth and what not, when they themselves barely understand the concepts, it can be dangerous........

Temporal, Urstruly, Romair, Samina and others - Regarding the `literary critique` discussion - here is a general comment about criticism:

Just like your kid, who you have brought into this world, is the most beautiful child for you and any ``critique`` to the contrary would be very offensive to you. Similarly, an essay or poem written by someone is the most beautiful piece of literature for its writer and so yes, he/she would be easily offended if it were to be critiqued in a negative way.

Having said this, I draw a distinction between comparing a `literary critic` to obtaining a medical opinion. There is just too much `cost` asymmetry between the two. You can be wrong in your literary criticism and yet it would not result in a loss of life (hopefuly).

Also, you do not become an ``expert`` in literary critcism out of thin air. You have to have some place to start. What better place than Chowk to polish and hone your literary critic skills?

In that spirit of literary criticism, let me say this: You all sucked in your discussion about ``literary criticism``.

Finally, a male who believes in forgiveness from other males. I mean, lets just face it...how many men dyu know who wud ever want to see the sight of a girl who they know is meeting another man? I thought up until now that such a thing was simply a womanz fantasy. For once, i m happy to be wrong ;)

On the whole, I wud say that where the who-dunnit plot was no huge surprise, the words are enormously expressive. Kinda puts the reader into the story. I especially identified with the white hotel bed-sheets!! (What??!! Its a free world people!)
And ``Married life..is end of love story..``??? Gimme a break! Whatever happened to the 21st century of new horizons guyz??? Quoting Khalil Gibran : ``Only love and death will change all things.`` I say lets Love!
Apart from that, the Black Pajero issue is so totally paranoid...i mean if you cant have Black Pajero in a ``story``, i say lets go bak to reading non-fiction.

What im inspired by, is that he simply gets real about the ``Gettin Some`` issue. Its a fact of life to him. Although why exactly Adnan waits to get a karachi Simm and a hotel room to finally sweep his wife off her feet, keeps me wondering.

And hopefully, married people who are looking for greener pastures will be careful about other people with Karachi simmz ;D