tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082470.post114180175794598786..comments2024-03-28T22:51:28.222+05:30Comments on The Middle Stage: Ruben Gallego's sub-human worldChandrahashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07483080477755487202noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082470.post-1142057285508186602006-03-11T11:38:00.000+05:302006-03-11T11:38:00.000+05:30Ah yes, I remember that now. I'll be putting that ...Ah yes, I remember that now. I'll be putting that piece on Marias up tomorrow or the day after to coincide with its publication in the Indian Express. It was supposed to appear last weekend, which is why I made that promise then.Chandrahashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483080477755487202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082470.post-1141966225195227052006-03-10T10:20:00.000+05:302006-03-10T10:20:00.000+05:30Confused - there are some good thoughts there. You...Confused - there are some good thoughts there. You ask if "despite all the efforts [of people like Gallego], are we still taking pity on them even without ever wanting to?" That may be so, but that small residue of pity is unavoidable; there's not much point feeling too worried or too bad about it. One may feel pity without the other party trying to provoke it, and the other party may even (and with some justification) feel insulted by this, but these kinds of misunderstandings are all too common in human relations, and not limited only to dealings between the able-bodied and the disabled.<BR/><BR/>What had I promised in a previous post? I can't remember.<BR/><BR/>And Bem - Tyrewala's book is like a film script, I suppose, in that the chapters are relatively short and the action keeps changing from one set of characters to another. I suppose an actual film that's similar to it in structure is the recent *Crash*, and perhaps it's worth pursuing that parallel, because Tyrewala (despite not intruding with his authorial voice) illuminates his characters with a fullness that's totally missing in *Crash*. (The film has in general got excellent reviews, and that opinion was backed by at the Oscars, but a sense of what I'm trying to say about it is presented more fully in a piece by Carina Chocano in the Los Angeles Times [http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/chocano/cl-et-crash6may06,0,6200670.story?coll=cl-chocano]). <BR/><BR/>So, to sum up, the format Tyrewala has chosen doesn't allow for much narratorial comment, which is of couse one of the things that distinguishes the novel or story from drama. But to my mind none of these things feel like omissions. The book works perfectly well without these things - and might even have been a clunkier piece of work had Tyrewala chosen to write it in a more traditional manner.Chandrahashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483080477755487202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082470.post-1141888376144583622006-03-09T12:42:00.000+05:302006-03-09T12:42:00.000+05:30"all you can see are my eyes, my big eyes, hanging..."all you can see are my eyes, my big eyes, hanging in the air fifteen centimeters off the floor." - the moment i read this, tom&jerry struck my mind. one of those most familiar scenes where only tom's eyes, huge and bright in the dark, would be hanging on the screen. then i wondered if any actor's eyes have been shown like tom's in any movies. more often than not, its always the animals'.<BR/><BR/>loved the last passage on old women dying. <BR/><BR/>unrelated to the post - i am reading altaf tyrewalla's "no god in sight". don't you think its more like a film script than a book?Swar Thounaojamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11214479662694190609noreply@blogger.com