Comments on: రచయితగా సత్యజిత్ రాయ్ - నా అభిప్రాయాలు

by: Wyer2

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:48:29 +0000

The editors have acknowledged the mistake. Unlike the print versions, the web allows us to correct mistakes.
It is only fair that the two should be published as two separate pieces. Sowmya Balakrishna clearly mentioned she was introducing Roy as writer and she did a good job of that.
Rohiniprasad is a scholar, perfectly capable of writing an article introducing Roy as film-maker.
Eemaata is a reputable magazine. I am sure they don’t want to carry this down history and archive it for posterity.

Wyer Govin

by: Veluri Venkateswara Rao

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:27:51 +0000

The editorial board sincerely regrets the mistakes it made in dealing with this article. It was a genuine attempt at presenting a well rounded article to our readers but we violated our own policies in our zeal to do so. We accept responsibility for the mistakes, express our regrets to the author and reviewers, and will do our best in the future to strictly adhere to the magazine’s editorial policies.

Veluri Venkateswara Rao

for the Editorial Board

by: J K Mohana Rao

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:12:33 +0000

నేను శ్రీమతి లైలాగారి అభిప్రాయాలను, శ్రీ పాణినిగారి అభిప్రాయాలను
చదివాను. నా అభిప్రాయము ఇది - పరిశీలకులు వ్యాసానికి
పరిపూర్ణతను ఇవ్వాలనుకొంటే సూచనలను, పుస్తకాలను
ఇవ్వవచ్చు. వాటిని చదివి మళ్ళీ రచయిత మరొక ప్రతిని
తయారు చేసి పంపవచ్చు. చివర రచయిత పరిశీలకులకు
థాంక్స్ చెప్పవచ్చు. సామాన్యముగా రచనావ్యాసంగములో
ఇది పద్ధతి. బహుశా ఈ వ్యాసములో రచయిత పరిశీలకులతో
వ్రాయుటకు అంగీకరించి ఉండవచ్చునేమో. అది మనకు తెలియదు.
కానీ మొట్టమొదటి పేరు వ్యాసమును మొదట వ్రాసిన రచయిత
పేరుగా ఉండాలి, పరిశీలకుల పేరు కాదు అని నేను అనుకొంటా.
నా భావాలను ఇలా చెప్పినందులకు అందరినీ క్షమాపణ కోరుకొంటూ
- మోహన

by: పాణిని శంఖవరం

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:37:29 +0000

Lyla,
This is precisely the reason why the article is presented the way it is, to make a clear distinction between what the writer wrote and what the reviewer(s) felt was needed to make the article complete. The original writing is not altered but only added on, in order to clarify. The point is clearly made without any loss of identity of the original article. Do you think it is any better if the reviewer(s) add their material/opinions to a submission, anonymously?
Regards,
Panini

by: Lyla Yerneni

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:11:55 +0000

I am disappointed in the stance of eemaata, in the publication of this essay.

Clearly, the writer wanted to give her opinion on Satyajit Ray’s writings. The writer writes an original, refreshing piece.

The reviewer sees the article as incomplete . So additions are made and the piece gets presented as a joint article.

To me, the reader, that change makes it a piece which is neither here, nor there. It is a mish-mash now.

The purpose of review panel is to see if the articles are readable, publishable. And even these basic functions are controversial, how much a review helps or obstructs creative writing.

The reviewer must have the largesse of heart, the eagerness to read the writer, as the writer presents it. Not the way he sees the subject, he wants it, or he would have written it.

The reviewer’s knowledge or style may not be what readers want to enjoy all the time.

If the reviewer adds his material, imposes his style, the writings’ identity will be lost. Uniform, cooky cutter articles will result.

When there is opportunity for all, to write independently, on any number of subjects, in any number of ways why should the reviewer piggy back to the writer?

Please let the writers write the way they want to. Thanks.

by: Aruna Gosukonda

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:58:00 +0000

చాలా బాగుంది.