मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Gross Injustice to G A Kulkarni's Memory?

(There are a few more entries on this blog on G A Kulkarni and his art. Click here to access them.)

Recently I was reading "Priya Jee E Sa. Na. Vi. Vi.", 1994 (प्रिय जी. ए. स. न. वि. वि.) edited by G A Kulkarni's (जी. ए. कुलकर्णी) cousin-sister Nanda Paithankar (नंदा पैठणकर) one more time.

G A Kulkarni received Sahitya Akademi Award in 1973 for his collection of short stories 'Kajalmaya' (काजळमाया).

Although today it looks no more than a storm in teacup, the award created a huge controversy that stirred middle class Marathi world.

No one doubted the merit of the book but the controversy was about whether the book qualified for the award in the first place.

The criterion laid down by the Akademi was that the book had to be published between Jan 1 1970- Dec 31 1972.

'Kajalmaya' wasn't published before March 1973!

This was raked up by 'Maharashtra Times' (महाराष्ट्र टाईम्स) whose staff member wanted to hit Ramdas Bhatkal (रामदास भटकळ), GA's publiher. (So much bitching went on in that small, claustrophobic world)!

Instead G A was devastated by the controversy and promptly returned the award. He wrote many letters in great anguish and received as many.

Ms. Paithankar's book carries a lot of that correspondence and even carries a picture of the receipt of the award amount- the then princely amount of Rs. 5,000- by the Akademi.

The book has an undated- from 1975- English letter by G A Kulkarni to the Akademi where he says: "...I have no desire to accept the award as it is, whatever the rules of the Akademi, which do not recognize a new problem like my book's. Unless the Akademi condones the irregularity, or accepts the book definitely in 1972,The award may please be treated as permanently returned..."

Since the Akademi's website still carries G A's name as the recipient of 1973 award, it should refer to this controversy and announce there what G A desired so desperately: "condones the irregularity, or accepts the book definitely in 1972."

It should also clarify the small matter of Rs. 5,000 because G A's best friend Jaywant Dalwi (जयवंत दळवी), in a lighter vein, wondered if G A's 'return' cheque was ever encashed by the Akademi!