Midnight's Knights?

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

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

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.

Romair #1

It is hilarious to watch Romair proclaim this piece a work of `analysis`.

{`Controversy, that cannot be backed by facts, should be discouraged, never encouraged.`}

If you don`t like Rushdie, you have plenty of options as someone living in an open society. You can refuse to publish him, if publishing is your line. You can write and publish a critique of his work - or not publish it if you think that will give him undue publicity. You can refuse to read or buy his books, and urge others to do likewise. In short, you can use all legal means to make his future works sink without trace.

{`I haven`t read much of Naipaul`}

Naipaul`s first two books on India produced a storm of criticism and adverse comment in that country, precisely because he spoke some uincomfortable truths. Even today they still make depressing reading. Had Naipaul only written `An Area of Darkness` and `India: a Wounded Civilization`, he would be right up there in Romair`s pantheon along with such dubious characters as Eric Margolis and William Baker, lauded for his brilliant observations and penetrating insights on India. But the man had the gall, the bad taste, the infernal chutzpah to turn his pitiless gaze on Pakistan among other countries in `Among the Believers` and `Beyond Belief` while producing a more optimistic if still critical assessment of India in `India: A Million Mutinies Now`. That is why he has to be cast out into the outer darkness

{Highlighting and respecting and even protecting (a la Roy) one`s heritage is a great quality.}

Another entirely predictable move: trying to shift the spotlight from Naipaul and Rushdie onto Arundhati Roy - an unabashed publicity-seeker if ever there was one, whose parade of `facts` turns out to be quite dubious on closer inspection. Let Roy say something really critical of the Pakistani establishment and watch Romair pirouette on a dime.

gz

``Ever wonder why they do not mete out this treatment to the Chinese? Because the Chinese do not giveup their language and culture! ``

......... i hate to point this out but the chinese living in the us are as westernized as their anglo neighbours - half of them name their kids larry and the other half peter ............ of course there is michael chang, michele kwan and connie chung, to name a few exceptions .........the only think chinese about them is that they can use chopsticks better than most white americans ......... and if you go to shanghai or guangzhou you might be disappointed to see that all chinese dress like the farangis and even think like farangis ........ the only person who still insists on running around in a nightshirt with a towel on his head is abdul .............abdul loves his camel and his culture ..............

Can`t add anything to what t and hamidm have said already. Nadira is not a *trophy* wife. A lovely woman(with even a lovelier daughter from a previous marriage), she used to write fairly regularly in newspapers with a wit and charm that was both refreshing and insightful.

Padma has also accomplished far and beyond what most cookie-cutter Indian bimbos have in recent years. Women being women have a hard time with the unconventional amongst them........

later
-sac

Stuka #11: ``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? ``

OK. I will enlighten you. Assuming, I am not reading too much into the analysis presented by Farzana.

No one can doubt the writing skills of Rushdie. He is no doubt a genius. A bad book by Rushdie is better than a good book by most writers. I have read his work thoroughly. Shame was the first book I read by a South Asian writer, and have since been hooked on South Asian writers like Roy, Shamsie, Hamid, Lahari, Mistry etc. etc.

I read Satanic Verses immediately after it was published. Then I read the analyses of all the writers critiquing it. I couldn`t find a single critic who, at least in my opinion, got the gist of the book.

Most of the people making noise in the, ``East`` had never read the book. They were just angry because someone had told them what was in the book. Ironically, I felt no one in the West could understand it either, even though they had read it. Rushdie mixes East and West so much, that very few Westerners can get the nuances of his work. For example, how many goras reading the Satanic Verses can understand the name Saladin Chamcha (chamcha being a slang South Asian term)? And how many goras can know what the terms four-twenty or sisterf//ker translate into. etc?

I read the book again. And eventually came to the conclusion that the few chapters in which Rushdie had created controversy were factless. He didn`t use any history to make a claim. It would be like someone disorienting Hinduism, with completely factless writings. Why would a knowledgeable person like Rushdie write something like this?

Once the controversy had caught on and Rushdie had become a household name (i.e. mission accomplished - the common non-literature reading person knows of him because of the Satanic Verses controversy, not because of Shame, M Children, G B Her Feet etc.), he started to explain his point of view. I started following his views closely. This was before he went into hiding. His logic was that there was an internal struggle within him - a fight between his religion of birth and what he may have wanted to be, i.e. athiesm vs Islam. And he portrayed that by deforming Islamic history, i.e. what could have been, what may have been, but without any facts to prove it. And without worrying about the sensitivities of one billion people. Ironically, saying Tom Cruise is gay can result in a lawsuit. So can stating that a shampoo will get rid of dandruff when it can`t. but making factless statements about Muhammad, Jesus, etc. is, ``freedom of speech.``

The Western press jumped on it and he became a symbol for the, ``freedom of press`` crowd. And now everyone, even outside the literary circles, knows who he is. He is not only a writer, he is considered an Islamic reformer, an activist, a symbol for freedom of press etc. When the only thing he is is someone who can write beautiful English - nothing more, nothing less.

This is why I liked this article. I don`t think the authors` aim was to say that Rushdie is a bad writer. Her aim was to get at the motivations of Rushdie and point out the inconsistencies in them (unless I am reading too much into it). This is something very few people see when they critique Rushdie. I see it, and anyone else who sees it, at least in my opinion, is carrying out a very good analyses.

The author concentrates on Rushdie using his Indian heritage to sell books. I think Rushdie has used his religion (in one big shot) to sell books (I am not sure how much he has used his ethnic heritage - he is a fellow Kashmiri by the way and does speak out about Kashmiri human rights).

This is what I have a huge issue with. People who create factless controversy (factfull is fine), and that too around anyone`s religion, to gain popularity and sell books should not be considered reformers. Rushdie is in no way an Islamic refomer (the controversies he has created have lead to nothing more than deaths). And just like Larry Flint`s Hustler magazine`s, ``freedom of speech`` stance is nothing more than selling dirty pictures, similarly Rushdie`s controversies are nothing more than selling books. At least in my opinion.

Naipul, I haven`t read much. So I cannot comment. He is probably also brilliant. Will have to start reading him.

Anyways, writers of Rushdies` calibre should not need to rely on factless controversies to become more famous than Mistry, Roy, Lahari etc. They should leave such controversies to people like Taslima Nasrin.

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

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

Ms. Versey,
You are even angrier than Naipaul and whatshisface. Why all people angry! angry! angry! Not good. So, no get angry at Nepal and Rushie. At least these two make money getting angry at muslim, indian, everybody. You just get angry on chowk and not get paid. So not get angry. Pliz!!

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

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

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

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

Saminashah #23: I`ll have to agree with you and others who noticed clear indignation by the author towards Naipaul and Rushdie. Obviously it is more of a critique of everything except their forte - literature. Unfortunately among desis disagreeing, disliking and detesting have become overlapped or inseparable due to black and white rights and wrongs.
It is not easy to generalize expectations from South Asian diaspora. However, one thing least affordable for diaspora is the vicious and vendictive attitude with respect to outsides of narrowly confined nationalism and religion. The F_K and gulab jamans of this world are fiercely against adopting either local culture or pride in regional mother cultures. In fact, diaspora is increasingly adopting local culture as well as aligning with cultural heritage. India, Pakistan, Islam, Hinduism for diaspora is declining and Gujrati, Tamil, Bengali, Panjabi etc is rising. The adoptioin of this trend is due to the benign nature of these cultures from political, religious and international point of view as well as rightly identifying with particular cultures. There is no Indian or Pakistani culture without bringing religions and politics in between.