Midnight's Knights?

Naipaul`s India A Million Mutinies Now is his only book which I have so far attempted to read. It contains a lot of detail about India in the mid 90s which I am grateful for, because such detail is hard to come by in one place, esp by a writer who IMO, got to the heart of the matter in his descriptions, despite not being a resident Indian.

Additionally, I think it was Naipaul who made the remark that expats of Indian origin have an uneasy feeling of estrangement from India which they(like himself) find hard to throw off even generations later and that this sense of estrangement was due to the Indian tendency to `sanctify` their connection with the soil/land. I was grateful for that astute observation, which explained a bit of myself to me(and my involuntary urge to seek out visible signs of the American Indian past in modern/industrialized US which has lost a similar sacred sense of connection since the Indians disappeared) and why there is now a Trinidadeshwar temple in Trinidad, for instance.

Rushdie won a court case about an ancestoral house in Simla, I think which he now owns. I hope he appreciates, inspite of thinking of himself as an outsider that was Britain and the Western world that stood up for him in the difficult years, not India or Pakistan.

A few years ago he made an illconsidered remark about how there was no significant Indian writing in any language but English. This remark raised a storm in India, as well as at home which led me to subscribe to the Sahitya Akademi literary periodical(which publishes translations of writers in many Indian languages) for 2-3 years just to prove how wrong he was. Kabhi hum Rushdie ko, kabhi un back issues ko dekthe hain.

Writers can be brilliant and insightful at times and not at all, at other times. I don`t think writers are meant to be digested whole, either in their writings or in their personalities.

FV,

I do disagree with some of your contentions:

1. ``the classicalisation of pop`` begs a definition that I look forward to reading

2. that this piece focuses on the inconsistancies of these writers` lives and not on their work. Both Hamid and Harp rightly pointed out that both Rushdie and Naipaul are prodigiously talented; if I dislike a great deal of Naipaul`s work, I cannot deny that the Enigma of Arrival is brilliant; neither can I deny Shame, Midnight`s Children, East/West. If this is a discussion of the South Asian diasporic writer`s life, perhaps there should be a criteria established, but I suspect that its not possible to satisfy everyone`s ideal diasporic writer.

3. What are our expectations of the South Asian diasporic writer as a writer and a human being? What as readers are we asking them to render? Do our expectations and references as Indian/Pakistani/Kashmiri/Nepali/Bhutani/Bangla and hypen South Asians overlap? How and where? Can we agree on where and how?

4. Are desi diasporic writers different than African/Latin American?Asian/Arab/Native American/Russian diasporic writers?

5. What are the dialogues that need to happen between writers in the motherlands and writers of exile? My contention is that there are profound issues that need to be discussed on an ongoing basis.

rgds

FV,

I do disagree with some of your contentions:

1. ``the classicalisation of pop`` begs a definition that I look forward to reading

2. that this piece focuses on the inconsistancies of these writers` lives and not on their work. Both Hamid and Harp rightly pointed out that both Rushdie and Naipaul are prodigiously talented; if I dislike a great deal of Naipaul`s work, I cannot deny that the Enigma of Arrival is brilliant; neither can I deny Shame, Midnight`s Children, East/West. If this is a discussion of the South Asian diasporic writer`s life, perhaps there should be a criteria established, but I suspect that its not possible to satisfy everyone`s ideal diasporic writer.

3. What are our expectations of the South Asian diasporic writer as a writer and a human being? What as readers are we asking them to render? Do our expectations and references as Indian/Pakistani/Kashmiri/Nepali/Bhutani/Bangla and hypen South Asians overlap? How and where? Can we agree on where and how?

4. Are desi diasporic writers different than African/Latin American?Asian/Arab/Native American/Russian diasporic writers?

5. What are the dialogues that need to happen between writers in the motherlands and writers of exile? My contention is that there are profound issues that need to be discussed on an ongoing basis.

rgds

.... as far as i am concerned both rushdie and naipaul are darn good writers and that is all i expect from them ....... i don`t give a flip about their opinions on india or the ozone layer .........i have read both ``a bend in the river`` and ``shame`` twice - so i got my money`s worth and that`s all that matters ..........

............ like most brilliant people these two are probably very sick individuals who would make lousy neighbors and friends .......... but who cares as long as they don`t move in next door? ............. and why should we worry about what kind of relationship they have with the women they hang out with - what does that have to do with buying a book ............woody alan is brilliant as was truman capote ........ who cares if they dress up in pantyhose and go whale hunting in their spare time ............ as for ms. roy with her silly shorn hair, she needs to write at least one more book before she can claim to be a writer ............ and as much as i hate the horrible hindoos her incessant whining makes me sick ..............

...haha...here we go again...poor little farceanna throwing a hissy fit and ranting in a poorly written piece laden with little more than emotion and anger...

10:Harpreet

Looks like you have imbibed their `education` well. Congratulations! Now your slaves back home(India) can really claim freedom. If for you back-home is England then pat yourself well. You are one Indian-Sikh who has become an Englishman. One must give up the turban, food, and language , and mannerism to morph into `them`. But `they` still do not consider you an englishman. Remember, you will always be a blackie, brownie, wheatie or Indi to them . Why? Because they ENSLAVED you ,gave you their language. Ever wonder why they do not mete out this treatment to the Chinese? Because the Chinese do not giveup their language and culture! Even during the HongKong `slave`-days. Those who do not resolutely stick to their roots and degrade their ancestral ways & kick themselves to look-like Indian/Hindu should never expect any respect even from racists.

.........................................................................................................

Who the hell was King Canute? No muslim is enamoured by magnafarta either.

Please get over this language-technology rant-----it still doesn`t make you ``them``. Further proof of an enslaved mind.

(Would you make this technology-language slavegrunt to a Francophone in France or Quebec writing against the miserable-anglophones and in english ? What about Chinese, Germans or ANY of language-proud countries. None of them let the colonisers` bastards run their affairs. )

This englo-struck (language & cultural) enemy among us has to be removed and by his enemy`s arsenal as well. How can you talk to the ignoramuses otherwise.

Worry not I,m not english to be so stupid as to try to stop the waves. I and Others make waves..and tides and Tidal Waves. Time to take cover.

Could you have guessed the collapse of the leftie-progressive Soviet Union so soon?

Do you see practising muslims near any beach counting the waves ? You should find out where they are and what are they doing so that even you, a non-muslim, can recover some of your lost pride and dignity.

Ferz:

interesting comparisons though not fair…

…not fair because one knight is a spent force while the other is far from it…

…not fair because while old war horse is over-rated and the younger stallion has yet to produce his best work…

…in these days of instaliving we are erroneously groomed in the expectations of instant gratification…;)…along with instant coffee, fast food, slow g/b friends, instant gratification is the altar by default…

...and what is common between naipaul and rush(ingto)die is they are both very adept at selling the sizzle…(the first kalima of ad-business: sell the sizzle, not the steak!)


digression:

…karachi and later bombay’s v g desani lacked in marketing himself…or he would be leading the pack of writers…the other one trick pony arundathi roy seems to have learned from desani…but as a writer we have difficulty reading her tea leaves…

digression:

…found this very focused and driven…lean…no fat…some very good observations and lines…

bspnd,

…t

re: Naipaul and Rushdie
Naipaul is arrogant. But the guy is a brilliant writer. People who are in the literature business tolerate him because of his brilliance. He has used India to explore and exploit. Explore his roots and exploit the conditions of misery to write some good books. An Area of Darkness comes easily to mind. Few in India have heard about him. Few care to read his books.
I hold Rushdie in greater esteem. He seems to be more balanced and is not such a reculse as Naipaul is. I have not read even one of Rushdie`s books so i do not know how he writes vis-a-vis Naipaul. I am told his books are a difficult read.
India seems to beckon them both. They visit the country when they have run out of ideas. India is a kaleidoscope of imagery. A keen observant like Naipaul can write dozens of books on India alone. Rushdies also seems to have some political connections and a property tucked in somewhere in the North. Their knowledge of India,however, is pathetic.
Sridhar

Farzana.

Really enjoyed reading this; can`t help agree with what you`re saying. I`ve read a few of Naipaul`s essays (India: A Wounded Civilisation) and while he`s an impressive writer, it`s all too clear that he has very little respect for the people he`s writing about.

Hi Farzana.

I agree with some of your contentions, and think that others are extraordinarily facile.

I will get back to you later on this!

take care

-h-

Romair

You really make me laugh.

If Arundhati Roy was a Pakistani you would be grinding your teeth over her credentials and motivations.

One of the funniest things I saw in the last year was a photograph of Arundhati Roy being fawned over by your Pimp-Daddy, Hamid ``the Ghoul`` Gul, at one of her readings in Pakistan. Now I like Arundhati Roy, but the idea of this pacifist liberal being coopted by this ultra right wing Islamic extremist and Taliban midwife was hilarious. He was literally doing pooja at her feet.

Does anybody else see the irony and humour in this?

Chomsky, Roy and all these secular liberal writers being fawned over by right wing illiberal illiterates whose estimation of the writer rises in proportion to their fair minded criticism of their own hate targets? When it validates their own prejudices?

You cannot blame them for it. When the Mullahs of Bradford decided to hunt down Rushdie I was in Wales once when a racist skinhead decided to bait me by mentioning how great a writer Rushdie was (thinking I was Muslim, remember, all dark skinned people = Muslims in westerners minds these days)...thats right, Rushdie the anti-racist liberal became temporarily a poster boy for the far right in Britain.

You cannot blame them.

Plus Arundhati has written only one (albeit good) novel so why is everybody saying she is a great writer? Build a body of work first.

Notice how Roy sends some Indians apoplectic and Rushdie has the same effect on some Pakistanis (have a quick laugh at Romairs post below).

I think its very funny.

Naipaul is a different matter. He is a man who succumbed to the heart of darkness. Will write more on him later. I think he does deserve close inspection.

Bye Bye

-h-

GhalibZaman a.k.a King Canute

Which country are you sitting in? What language are you writing in? Whose technology are you typing on? Whose free society are you ranting against in?

Just wondering

-h-

GhalibZaman a.k.a King Canute

Which country are you sitting in? What language are you writing in? Whose technology are you typing on? Whose free society are you ranting against in?

Just wondering

-h-

Romair:

``One of the best analysis I have ever read on Chowk.

I will take people like Arundhati Roy over people like Rushdie anyday (I haven`t read much of Naipul). ``

Analysis of what??? The authors` personalities? I have read through the whole article twice, and there is no mention of either person`s works. Please read A House for Mr Biswas to discover the depth of Naipaul`s story telling skills.

I have not read Satanic Verses, but I have read Shame and Midnight`s Children. Rushdie has an incessant capability of fusing fact and fiction, random occurences of real life in his plot to weave a wonderful story. My personal favourite is how he weaved the real life Nanavati murder case into the plot of Midnight`s Children.

When Farzana says these two authors belong to the streets, what exactly is she alluding to? Why exactly are they knaves? Because they are bad writers? Or because they choose not to be resident in a country that they comment about? If it is the former, then Farzana presents no examples of literal degradation. If it is the latter, then is just a case of geographical parochialism to assume that if a person does not live in a country, he or she cannot or should not have the right to pass comment on it.

So I ask you again. If this is one of the analysis that you have read, please enlighten me...exactly what is being analyzed here?

FV,
Your entire article operates under the assumption that Naipaul and Rushdie are dying to be ``accepted`` as Indian while the truth is neither of them gives a sh*t
What the hell are you so angry about always?
Chill girl!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts