I AM thankful to Rauf Parekh for his review of my book, 'Mukalmay aur Muhakmay' (Nov 2). I admire Parekh's erudition, his research-based reviews, his keen analytical skills and his neutrality in literary matters.

However, I take exception to his observation “However, he (the writer) has taken some of the remarks/quotations from some books but has forgotten to mention the source. For example, the information about the number of words that may be used in a short story, as quoted by Somerset Maugham, the mentioning of the length of D. H. Lawrence's short story 'Fox' or Edgar Allen Poe's opinion on short story all have been translated, word for word, from The Penguin dictionary of literary terms and literary theory giving the impression that he has himself read them in original. This casts a shadow of doubt on his other musings as well.”

This is besides the point that I had already read all three writers — and a good part of them at that — while I had not yet crossed 20. I, however, confess to have consulted M. H. Abrams' 'A Glossary of Literary Terms' and of course J. A. Cuddon's 'Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory' to cull the data to make my point as to the pragmatic length of Naeema Ziauddin's short stories.

I did not consider it necessary to identify the source in this case because the nature of information was factual and it was no more than like looking up a word in the dictionary or a train's time in the railway Time table.

Based on the data, the opinion expressed was my own. I protest at the disparaging remark “.... giving the impression that he himself has read them in original. This casts a shadow of doubt on his other musings as well.”

Throughout my book, as Mr Parekh must have noted, I have quoted profusely from diverse sources and identified them right in the text. Mr Parekh's definitive pronouncement, however, casts aspersion on the integrity of the writer and the entire text.

SARDAR ZAIDI
Via email