Posted:
Originally posted by: commentator
Goodness, Kool, thank you very much! More - and higher - praise than one could have anticipated for a 20 minute FF on IF. 😊 (Though I confess to editing minor details afterwards, viz. the Limca ladies.)However, on a realistic note: clearly this is your affection speaking rather than your critical faculties, since work like Lahiri's and Jhabvala's requires both serious research and much focused effort. Even if I could come within reach of such subtlety, especially Lahiri's, for a few lines or phrases, I don't know if I could sustain it through a whole novel or even a short story. I think she's absolutely brilliant, so the mere suggestion that I could some day begin to emulate her is wonderfully flattering. 😊C
C there we go , we differ again .
Why should you be this modest or self effacing where Lahiri's writing is concerned ? Seriously C did u mean all that ? She is GOOD NOT BRILLIANT. Of course it is my opinion only but there , I have said it . C , Alongwith her many others were nominated for the Pulitzer and they were equally as good as her , she was the LUCKY ONE THAT DAY when the committee made that decision . Her stars up in space were shining bright like Blake's tiger . And so she arrived . But what about those who were nominated and didn't get it are they any bit lesser than her ?
C all those who are nominated for the Pulitzer , booker , PEN FAULKNER awards cannot be more better than the other nominees . Utltimately a bunch of people give an opinion ..........it boils down to that , thats all . Tagore got the Nobel but Sarat Chandra was equally worthy wasn't he ?
I read it elsewhere too , a crtic had lavished praise on Lahiri saying now we are scared of her etc etc , she has arrived . All this with what , just two books to her credit in which she thrashes the bengali immigrant experience most of the time ...........I am not talking here of her Interpreter of maladies where indeed some character sketches are good . As far as her lucid style goes , its good , but ONLY THAT . R K Narayan , whom btw Lahiri reads before writing , had nOT done any creative writing course like Lahiri did in BOston [ the place where one gets the right contacts] , neither had Tagore , neither had JOHN BUNYAN or Mark Twain . C i strongly believe Lahiri is good but over hyped and please , for my sake don't say that you can come close to only emulating her . What nonsense ! You are brilliant and if you can just write this way for fun , if u put your mind to a short story you will be be the goods . For u have a way with words and writing is ultimately only that .........a way with words . This painstaking research and focus that writers of Lahiri's breed do nowdays by doing creative writing courses perhaps helps them in writing but it must be remembered that yesteryear writers wrote without doing these courses and got Nobels . PG Wodehouse wrote twenty five pages a day , and words flowed coz it was in his bblood and Lahiri cannot come upto his mark in any way is my personal opinion , although their genres r vastly different . For that matter Anita Desai did not land the Booker and Kiran Desai did , but I find the mother's style much more less contrived and effortless .
You can do it coz when u write , the scene stands before my eyes . Your description is vivid and lucid both . And although i do have affection for u as a forum friend I say yhis with total honesty .
