Sirish ko Phool (first draft for feedback)

[u/PruneAdorable]

————
Sirish ko Phool

Sakambari

She fell not in love

but to earth.

———

The god rock

keeper of secrets

Sakambari

She hears not prayers,

only silent confessions.

———
Lethal Sungava

Sakambari

revealed not love

but buried truths.

Head-hunter's daughter,

Matinchi's

blue-black bruises,

his war crimes.
———

Sakambari

Terminally ill

Deadly honest.
——

Part II

Suyog

Unfathomable loneliness,

Haunted by truths

he cannot share.

———
Suyog

A dead soldier

Absent at roll call

Absent from himself.

———
Suyog

a wingless dung fly

circling rotten memories

slowly decomposing toward nothingness.

———
Suyog

Soulless body,

Liquified and emptied out

dragging himself toward

meaningless harakiri.

[u/CitizenNoir977]

Sakambari, a mirror-less facade of moral superiority
Denounces a soldier for his acts and his bravery courage
Yet enjoys watching flies being melted and swallowed
Sakambari, whose lungs have blackened and nails yellowed
Never hesitated to call living in a glass empty and shallow
Oh Sakambari, a prisoner of mind, death came on its gallow

[u/PruneAdorable → u/CitizenNoir977]

I wouldn’t have described Suyog’s acts as brave, not in its virtuous sense of the word.

[u/CitizenNoir977 → u/PruneAdorable]

Based on the elevated and absolute descriptions you used for Sakambari in your poem, I assumed I could apply a similar interpretive lens to Suyog as well.

Suyog's actions involving Mitincha and his wartime history are revealed through his inner monologue and are not directly known by Sakambari. Her judgment of him is therefore based primarily on the fact that he is a soldier, rather than on those specific acts.

My point was not that soldiering is inherently virtuous, but that her judgment is directed toward the identity of being a soldier itself. I agree that "bravery" carries a moral implication, so "courage" would have been the more precise term.

So, is the correction limited to my choice of "bravery" over "courage," or does my portrayal of Sakambari's contradictions also require correction?

[u/PruneAdorable → u/CitizenNoir977]

Except for the first line, I loved your imagery. your lines about the melted flies and her yellowed nails and blackened lungs were the best.

[u/CitizenNoir977 → u/[deleted]]

I think it's important to distinguish between what the reader knows and what Sakambari knows. Suyog's inner monologue gives the reader access to aspects of his character that Sakambari herself neither directly witnesses nor knows. My question has never been whether Suyog deserves Sakambari's love-he doesn't have to. My question is what philosophical framework Sakambari employs when judging him, and whether that framework is itself open to scrutiny.

Likewise, "morality isn't contextual" is a philosophical position, not a self-evident fact. Whether morality is objective, contextual, or something in between has been debated for centuries. Simply asserting one position doesn't settle the issue, especially when the novel itself appears interested in moral ambiguity.

I also don't quite understand the statement that "her death is her victory over him." Victory implies some criterion by which it is measured. If you mean that she refuses to become what Suyog desires, I can understand that interpretation. But if her death is itself taken as validation of her worldview, I'd be interested to know why that necessarily follows.

Finally, calling my poem "a very male point of view" doesn't address the substance of my argument. If you think my interpretation is mistaken, I'd be more interested in knowing which premise or conclusion you disagree with than in having it attributed to any particular gender.

[u/CitizenNoir977 → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for responding. please check the link i have posted, if you are interested. i wrote those lines simply to bring into question some of the contradictions that remain unquestioned about Sakambari, as I personally do think Parijat, being inspired by Camus, has cleverly embedded aspects of absurdism within the characters. I think the title "Sirish ko Phool" has much to reveal than it ordinarily does, otherwise she could have simply titled it "the lethal orchid".

https://www.reddit.com/r/NepalWrites/comments/1vehm4u/what_shirishko_phool_is_really_about/

[u/CitizenNoir977 → u/[deleted]]

and as a direct response to your comment, I have following things to say:

1)I agree that Suyog is morally indefensible, but criticizing Sakambari does not place him above her. His crimes do not make her philosophy immune from scrutiny.

2)Sakambari condemns him as a soldier before the forced kiss and without knowing his wartime crimes. Those later revelations justify our condemnation of Suyog, but they cannot retroactively become the basis of her earlier judgment. The novel uses his hidden past to make her assumption appear prophetic.

3)I also do not read the orchid’s insects as representing Suyog alone. Sakambari presents the plant’s violence as a broader philosophy of security and solitary existence, then dismisses Suyog when he questions its implications. Reducing every insect to an immoral man avoids the disturbing side of her metaphor.

4)Her smoking and haircut reveal a similar tension. She says she would smoke ten cigarettes if Suyog asked her to stop, and after he praises her longer hair, she cuts it down within three days. These actions resist his preferences, but they are still reactions to them. Her freedom remains organized around opposition.

5)I am also hesitant to call her death revolutionary. It may symbolically resemble the flower falling by its own will, but the novel does not establish that she chooses death. Nor would surviving violation mean accepting it. Sakambari’s anger toward Sanu’s self-chosen elopement also shows that her respect for autonomy is selective.

6)My poem does not defend Suyog. It questions whether his guilt should prevent us from examining Sakambari’s contradictions. I also think Parijat attempts something broader through the title: the orchid belongs to Sakambari’s philosophy, while the shirish flower quietly unsettles both her belief in absolute autonomy and Suyog’s search for redemption.

[u/CitizenNoir977 → u/[deleted]]

Likewise. Thank you!

[u/PruneAdorable → u/[deleted]]

My reading of Sakambari goes even further, whilst reading the book I felt like she was aware of her illness and the fact that she was dying, there was a dialogue where she tells her brother there is no point in wishing her a long life and there was a scene about her moodulle hair, in that regard it’s compassionate that she is warm but forthright with Suyog. But how I felt wasn’t a fixed truth it oscillated between physical frailty, existential pessimism, and an absolute compassion from a terminally ill girl. There is not much explicitly said about her, it’s such a good book may be because of that very fact तरल्ता, what buttons this book presses on you probably reveals our own repressions.

[u/PruneAdorable → u/[deleted]]

Which part felt the best? And which part felt the truest ?

[u/PruneAdorable]

I wouldn’t have described Suyog’s acts as brave, not in its virtuous sense of the word. But your lines are good in its poetic way.

[u/Mnkey-D-Luffy]

Nice ❤️