Is Helen Fielding a Racist?

It`s nonsense like your post that holds our/(your) society in such stagnation. You people in your arrogant self righteousness jump out like highly strung jack-in-the-boxes at the first sign of criticism, legitimate or otherwise, yet are blind, ignorant, to what is really happening in your society, and how appalling life is for many because of your vile religion.

What right do You have to squawk about westerners not making pedantic distinction between those nasty terrorists and the rest of us oh so good people? Why should you expect a westerner to make such a subtle distinction, when it is not at all clear that there IS that much of a difference??

In your conceited self righteousness, you totally ignore the pertinent points that outsiders make about your vile society... but the fact is that what these people say IS TRUE. Your society IS misanthropic and misogynist. No, not just a minority; but your society as a whole. You people`s silence or perfunctory condemnation when individual cases of human rights abuses emerge, damns you. It is always left to the westerners, to the human rights activists in the developed CIVILISED countries to pressurise, lobby, beg, plead for outrageous human rights abuses to be corrected. NOT your society. It *IS* your societies problem, who would always look the otherway.

I am sick and tired of you people`s constant whining and hypocrisy. Grow up.

#19 by arjun_m on December 29, 2004 2:13pm PT

`Poor saudi victim of opression driven by despair to blow himself up and other bystanders?`

Nah, suicide bomber is just fine. We have to make allowance for the religionist, the racist and the bigots amongst us. Remember these are all responses to reality. However faulty (saudi????) they may be..

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

` the born-again Christians kill innocent men women and children with smart bombs -- and call them collateral damage in persuit of Christian values`

Nicely put!!

Racism is not unlike religion.. which is just about the most appropriate response to reality. Reality being harsh and unforgiving - what with all the earthquakes and tsunamis, some need religion to make sense.

Racism is also a response to reality.. a tool to categorize, a device to make sense however faulty that may be..

Another response is euphemism and and the use of language - how some unimaginable phenomena is encapsulated in a sound byte such as `suicide bomber`.. it makes easier sense than the whole explanation..

Bina - good one. Can`t say I thought about it particularly since I haven`t read this one. Read the BJ books and had a good time. I didnt pay much attention to the absence of nonwhites in those because they make such rare appearances anywhere and besides this isnt what I would call the lit of the century and I lived through 10 yrs of Friends and...

Of course some would point out that such apathy is what leaves the doors wide open.

From what you and others who have read the book have said about it, I would guess she is less a racist and more a lazy writer. The plot appears to be a mish mash of a number of books and concepts (isnt Sky News owned by Rupert Murdoch? Hmm) all of which can be found at checkout counters - and before you can say trash, hey! this trash makes a lot of money. And romance novelists (and Hollywood) have always been partial to the over-sexed Arab with evil intentions and pots of money. This is merely a post 9-11 variant.

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

if the shoe fits wear it and stop whining !

..........nowdays most muslims, in addition to suffering from the horrible effects of a seventh century tsunami, are also paranoid and have extremely low self-esteem ........... the fact of the matter is that most terrorists are muslims and most muslims think like their cave-dwelling leaders who want them to run around the desert dressed in night gowns, screaming allah o akbar and lopping off the heads of any infidel that they come across ............ they treat their women like dogs and their dogs like pigs and if they had their druthers the poor pig would be extinct ..................

.......... but when someone states the obvious they go into a tizzy, scream bloddy murder, and are ready to blow themselves up ........... how silly can you get !

........ i haven`t read the book, but i doubt that fielding is a racist - after all there are lots of books out there that stereotype catholic priests as pedophiles, irish as drunks, jews as loud and obnoxious schemers, southerners as idiots, italians as crooks and the horrible hindoos as, well, hindoos .........so, like i said, quit whining !

Well written piece Bina. I read the both of the Bridget Jones` books and they were mildly amusing, good to pass the time on a long train journey. I haven`t read her new book though and don`t plan to either--she is not a v. good writer! Is she racist? Possibly, possibly not! Does it matter? Not if we are just interested in her books.

I agree with Romair. We all have our racist tendencies--desis tend to be more prejudiced against blacks than anyone I`ve met! I think though that despite this the UK is one of the least racist places to live; yes it exists but there is a taboo against it not seen in most other places. A politician cannot survive if he is seen to be racist and I think generally the Brits are least racist now certainly compared to the rest of Europe.

I feel comfortable here and my skin colour has rarely been an issue...

Thanks for introducing some of us to Fielding and for creating a rare consensus at chowk that we are all racists.

BTW Fielding probably wrote ``The woman is wholly eroticized: an object to be protected if she is one of your own, and pursued and conquered if she is not``, after visiting chowk`s unplugged. :)

Hi Bina

It was a very disappointing book compared to Fielding`s earlier work and has sunk without trace.

The date of publication was July or August 2004 long after Al-Qaeda caught the world`s imagination.--so I imagine some of it must have been written after 9-11--not sure where you got the written before 9-11 information--anyway, Yes, the book can be a tad bit politically incorrect--however to give the devil her due, Fielding was not being racist, just trying to pull together a badly written book and displaying at least to a Muslim, some ignorance about `dem Muslims or Arab Muslims if one must categorize; going by the proportions of Muslims out there, chances are that at least one must have been involved in proofing and printing the book--one would hope Fielding knows that. So, in all fairness Fielding was probably just painting a lurid picture of a `terrorist` muslim rather than a general run of the mill Muslim. The first few chapters seemed worse than the last half. It is hard for her to deny that she is being racist, especially since Fielding didnt bother to put a `nice ` Muslim to stay safe and politically correct.

The tongue in cheek P.G. Wodehouse humour was good in bits and pieces. I felt that overall it focused on that particular character rather than a bone about Muslims per se and so I was able to enjoy the jokes about Muslims-- I think it is ok for a few pokes at any race or religion. I mean cutting of hands is a bit dire, no? Just as relinquishing nuns to a nunnery.

Talking of racism, najib mahfouz must be included in the list of racist authors--his Cairo Trilogy does not paint a happy picture of women in Islam or despotic men. If we look at fiction about Islamic societies, there is a long tradition of stories that show autocracy, passion and revenge in those societies. I can go on--but let`s leave it here.

To be fair, if we compare fiction depicting Christian societies (can there be such a term), it also focus on problems and issues around the Christian social structure.

I kinda liked Olivia though...she was so funny. And yeah, as you rightly put it, the bad guy was such a cartoon character mixup of dodi et al.

I believe TAhmed is a self confessed racist.

Racism is a complex behavior. Many times we see our own reflections in others behaviors. Pride or prejudice, ignorance is the bliss. Making racism more politically correct, is to make this behavior more tolerable. We all have it in us, it is how we express it in dealing with others, makes socially acceptable behavior. Helen Fielind put a politically correct and handsome face of ``scrumptous`` Mark Darcy that I did not notice it watching the movie. Someone can easily say describing an actor ``scrumptuous`` indicates something toward certain men too.

Anil

kaalchakra,

But then this tarring of ``western audiences`` needs to be examined. Who is this ``western audience``? Is it composed of south asian immigrants? South Asian Americans? Does it include all postcolonial readers? Poli Sci people? And since his book seems to be critiquing Islamophobia, how is his ``western audience`` consuming a critique of the very ideologies our current American administration is constructing?

My husband bought the book for me seeing the title and the cover of the book. The juxtaposition of the title ``Husband of a Fanatic`` and the henna`ed palms is nifty undoing itself. So he was intrigued by the combo. I`ve gotten to the third chapter and it seems that Kumar is doing something quite difficult-acknowledging his own privillege and the unstable line that separates him from the Hindu rightwing he is researching. This device of self interrogation, self disclosure makes a more informative reading than the usual transference we see in a lot of literature, and at the same time it operates on a venerable lit tradition. As I am reading the book, I`ve been telling my husband about it and he is able to relate to some of Kumar`s ideas of what happens when you marry ``the enemy``... and Hamid Sahib might argue that from that we are led right into gender studies...

I agree with romair, amit, labyrinth, nasah, nb, kalachakra (that pretty much covers all commentators so far), as summarized very well by romair ``Everybody is racist. Regardless of what kind of show they put on. There is just different levels of racism.`` Someday we will see people as individual human beings and not as members of this or that group - things are headed that way. But we are not there yet.

Everybody is racist. Regardless of what kind of show they put on. There is just different levels of racism. And different levels of control.

I suppose there isn`t much wrong (or overly wrong) with it, as long as one doesn`t cause any harm to the other person. It is a natural human emotion, that can only be controlled, but not eliminated.

The most racist place I have ever been to is Saudi Arabia. And from my first visit for Hajj, till this day, I have promised myself I will never go there again.

The least racist place I have seen is Canada. I would put pre-9/11 USA as second. However, post-9/11 USA is a different story. In addition, US racism, unlike racism of other countries tends to be seen more in its foreign policy, and less in domestic policy. At the same time, if there is one more attack inside the USA, the Arabs and Muslims (both the Abduls and non-Abduls) will be in for a tough ride. Already 40% of Americans think Muslims should be under different laws. And 49% think all Arab-Muslims (including citizens) should carry special ID cards.

The most racist place I have read about, but haven`t visited, is apartheid South Africa. Now with aparthied finished, the most racist place I have read about is Israel...........

There is only way to fight racism. Become more successful than the person committing the racism. Become a better writer than Helen Fielding, in her own language. As they say, ``if you want to defeat someoned, don`t fight them; just become more successful than they are.....``

Islam/Arabs appear to be facing a challenge that has been quite familiar to Hindus - the whole is being painted in terms of a part. It is a frustrating and aggravating experience.