Anil, Why this question is raised only when somebody speaks?How do you relate it to the present situation? I am interested to know.
Let me share my personal convictions on the present subject. 1. I am speaking/ acting from my position in a particular institution without any claim of a universal intellectual. 2. When an institution of which I was also a part did injustice to an author , I tried to stand by her and fight for her rights. 3. I waited till the publication of English translation just because I was aware of the fact that translation rights was with the publisher and any issue in between may harm the interests of the author. 4. As Nalini's and Ayyappan's oeuvre are public texts , I think I also have the right to speak on them. 5.Though mine was an in between subject position, those experiences which I recounted were mine , not Nalini's. 6. I never claimed any authority to speak on the subject. It is just that I decided not to remain silent. 7. The mainstream publishing/ literary institution neglected C.Ayyappan for four decades. Very few people [ like Sanni Kapikkad, K.K.Baburaj, M.B.manoj, V.P.sivakumar, V.C.Harris] wrote about it. I have also wrote about his stories some time back innmatrubhoomi Azhchappathippu. I am trying to see his stories published in English and Malayalam by drawing on my present professional subject position. My involvemnts are marginal, mundane and of little importance. 8. I am not theorising , but participating in an ongoing debate. 9. Just because somebody brands something as 'patronising', 'valorising' etc, will it become so? [ Kindly read what Nalini have to say on this subject before arriving at conclusions. She speaks on it in the interview appended to the English translation] I really am eager to know how your concern touches my intervention.. On 10/13/07, Anil Tharayath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Friends > > > I had always this question in mind > > 1) Who has the right to theorise? > > The moral right to theorise is by taking the notion of lived > experience (word borrowed from Gopal Guru's talks). But what is lived > experience? What are the elements that constitute lived experience? > And most important is to look at what is the relation between lived > experience and theories about this experience? > > 2) Every time when one becomes instrumental in coming out with a work > (it can be anything for sg: getting a fellowship) the person who > actually gets it becomes irrelevant but the person being instumental > becomes valourised. How will one deal with this is another anxiety. > Where no qualities/ merits of the "subject" is taken into > consideration and this has happened throughout the histoey of > progressives. > > > On Oct 13, 10:18 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "But dileep, u didn't mention the harsh criticsms that ur paper > > recieved in Hyderabad > > that apart.. seems to be a quite intersting piece" > > > > That is an incorrect report Ranjith!! My "paper" [ unfortunately] > > recieved no criticism!! > > There were two comments. You might be referring to the second one by > > Arun, a research scholar. Well, my 'transcript' of the comment and > > response goes like this. > > He asked me 'For whom do you translate violence?" I sought > > clarification whether he raised this in connection with C.Ayyappan's > > stories > > He said,' no about both the texts.' > > " I don't share your assumption that it is violence that is being > > translated. In Nalini's text, she is playful, conscious of her several > > identities though her painful experiences are also woven into the > > text" > > Then Arun vociferously shouted " You are a broker.. You are > > translating it for OBCs. You are an OBC. You are a SHUDRA " > > " Ok, now I got you! I don't take it as an abuse. Broker, pimp etc are > > marginal positions which we should reclaim.I take it as a compliment." > > "What is your political subjectivity?" > > " You seem to be interested in fixing my identity. In connection with > > these two authors I was transcriber to Nalini and instrumental in > > bringing out Ayyappan's shortstory collection as editor" > > > > Ranjith, taking the body language and volume of speaking, it could > > qualify for being 'harsh' but not 'harsh criticism ' on my paper! > > I know Arun personally, and am sure that he is capable of > > substatciating his position further. Am waiting for him to do it. > > > > Were you present there? > > [ Hope they would have recorded the proceedings..]Do you share Arun's > views? > > > > After the presentation, I got a valuable comment from Suresh, a student > who > > told me that he being blind, always have to live under constant > > suspicion. People thought it was not he, but the transcriber who was > > responsible for his success in examinations. > > The question of authentic authorship was re--presented to me by him in > > an insightful manner. > > > > Anyway, thanks for commenting on the abridged version.. > > > > On 10/13/07, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You die because you Think" seems the logic > > > wht more one can expect from a state where the major disocurse is on > "How to > > > patronise voices" > > > > > Nalini Jameela's agency could be acceptable now to DC, thnks to the > > > neo-liberal acumen of Publishers, which the "pre"-liberal world could > not > > > offer to NAlini (our avowed leftist who do don-quixotian exercise > against > > > globalisation may not agree.. yea i do agree that don-quixote is too > > > complicated a character to freeze inot a ideological time zone) > > > > > But dileep, u didn't mention the harsh criticsms that ur paper > recieved in > > > Hyderabad > > > that apart.. seems to be a quite intersting piece > > > so, > > > best wishes > > > > > On 10/12/07, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Sukumar Azheekkode alleged that it was Sudheesh and other friends > who > > > > were > > > > responsible for the last press meet and death of M. N. Vijayan. > > > > A peculiar Kerala logic that is. Even a 'respectable' man like > MNVijayan > > > > > > is denied of his agency in what he did . > > > > That reminded me of the way in which Kerala 'public' > > > > generally behaved to Nalini Jameela. Also, the way in which agency > was > > > > denied to Rajeena, > > > > victim in Vithura case ... > > > > Below I am pasting a small descriptive portion of a paper > presented at > > > > Hyderabad Central university > > > > on October 4th [ in a seminar on 'Translation and Transformation"] > this > > > > month by me. > > > > The paper was titled " Who is a writer? On Writings of Nalini > Jameela and > > > > C. ayyappan". > > > > > > Nalini Jameela came to the public attention in Kerala when > her > > > > autobiography became a best seller.There was an uproar as DCBooks , > the > > > > major mainstream publishing house in malayalam published it. > Incidentally > > > , > > > > I was working as editor in DCBooks then though not directly > involved in > > > > that project.Nalin was a friend much before I joined DCBooks. > > > > Everybody, [ rightists and feminists alike ] thought that > her > > > > story was fiction and the real 'author' was the person who > transcribed it. > > > > Surprisingly, Nalini hereself came to my home one day and complained > that > > > > she was completely upset to see the published version.She wanted to > revise > > > > it thouroughly. > > > > Both of us went and spoke with Ravi DC [ incidentally that > was > > > > her 'first' encounter with the publisher!!] . The actual situation > was > > > more > > > > complicated than we expected it to be.According to the agreement > signed, > > > > the rights of her autobiography was with the person who transcribed > it! > > > > Ravi DC agreed to bring out the revised version and Nalini got the > rights > > > > back after paying 25,000 rupees out of her royalty to I. Gopinath, > the > > > > transcriber. One wonders whether any other 'author' will be > treated in a > > > > similar manner.In public's view, she can't have any political or > > > > heoretical dilemmas. > > > > After reclaiming the right, we ie; five of us worked as a > group > > > > and prepared the new version out of fresh interviews within one > month. Her > > > > decision to rewrite the autobiography also created much controversy. > > > > She mentions in her introduction to the revised versionn > that she > > > > did try to write it herself, but couldn't move beyond a few > sentences. She > > > > wrote this much in a notebook. ' I am Nalini. Was born at Kalloor > near > > > > Amballoor. I am fourty-nine years old." This ended in her losing a > client > > > as > > > > he learned her real age after accidenatlly reading it! Thgus lack > of 'a > > > > room of one's own without cliends' foiled her attempt at becoming an > > > author. > > > > > > Couple of weeks ago, when the English translation was > released in > > > > Delhi, Nalini respnded to questions about authorship in an > interesting > > > way. > > > > most of the reporters refused to accept somebody who gets her > > > autobiography > > > > written by others as an authentic author.Answering questions about > her > > > > next literary venture Nalini sarcastically replied: You just > mentioned how > > > > can I be an author. Therefore ,it will take time for me to write the > next > > > > book. Let me become an author first!!" > > > > > > -- > > > > Dileep R I thuravoor > > > > -- > > Dileep R I thuravoor- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- Dileep R I thuravoor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
