Phun Stough

 Etc.  Comments Off
Aug 132005
 

Through Prufrock’s Page, a link to this delight­ful arti­cle where Ralph Berry muses on why Eng­lish pro­nun­ci­a­tion and spelling hate each other so much.

I once saw the great Lau­rence Olivier play Malvo­lio in Twelfth Night. I had to pay a vast sum for a seat in the front row, so I gazed up at the actor a cou­ple of yards away. In the Gar­den scene, Malvo­lio has to say “Cast thy hum­ble slough” (that is, aban­don your lowly demeanour, as a snake sloughs off its skin). Olivier’s eyes roamed around the audi­ence, and set­tled on me. “Cast thy hum­ble, er, sleouwgh? [slight pause] sluff?” The audi­ence of 1,500 exploded in laugh­ter as one.

Malvo­lio didn’t know.

And nei­ther did I.

And I wasn’t alone.

 

I thought Shankar’s sis­ter was hot. She was the only girl in the neigh­bor­hood that had got­ten into med­ical school, and ever since Rex told me about the things (he thought) Med­ical stu­dents did, I had the hots for them. The only prob­lem was that Shankar hap­pened to be my friend, so I had to watch it. Plus she was a good ten years older than me, so yeah, I really had to watch it. That didn’t stop me from try­ing to talk to her as much as I could, and brag­ging to my friends in school that I had a girl­friend. Of course, I didn’t tell them that I called her Akka — that was totally besides the point.

When­ever I went to Shankar’s place, she would be sit­ting on the sofa, or on their mot­tai madi , read­ing a Mills and Boone. She seemed to have an end­less sup­ply of the books.

It was my Hardy Boy’s phase, and I’d never come across M&B before. But, I had this vague notion that these were naughty books, rein­forced by the cov­ers that almost always had a pretty girl (and her cleav­age) hug­ging a shirt­less guy. To make sure my hypoth­e­sis was right, I went and asked an older friend. “Oh, they are sex books alright,” he assured me.

After this rev­e­la­tion, the object of my amorous atten­tions was no longer her, but the books. I resolved to read one of them, come what may. The next time Shankar and I were alone in his house, I asked him (rather rudely, in ret­ro­spect): “Hey, can we read one of those sex books that your sis­ter has?”

Man, how did you know?”

I was taken aback by this unex­pected response, and mut­tered some­thing about a friend at school, but he was too excited to care about my response.

It’s an awe­some book you know, it has pictures.”

Pic­tures?” Damn, this was bet­ter than I thought. “And your dad doesn’t mind her read­ing them all the time?”

No, why would he?”

As I was try­ing to fig­ure out what this meant, he went in and brought a book back. He flipped through the book pur­pose­fully, and as soon as he located what he wanted to, directed my atten­tion to it. He was point­ing to a pic­ture of a nude woman from his sister’s anatomy textbook.

PS : Check out this Guardian col­umn byZoe Williams, where she talks about Mills and Boon launch­ing a new line that will “tackle the harder edges of life — can­cer, divorce, dif­fi­cult chil­dren, the whole raft of dis­sat­is­fac­tion and weltschmertz that might beset the mod­ern female as she lights some can­dles, sinks into a bath and, er, does those things that ladies do.” I did, and it trig­gered some memories.

Until I Find You

    Lit  Comments Off
Aug 112005
 

Adam Kirsch briefly reviews John Irving’s Until I Find You for the New Yorker, join­ing the long list of crit­ics who’ve dissed the book.

When we finally meet the father, now ail­ing, we get a clearer impres­sion of his ill­ness and his doc­tors than of the man him­self. This curi­ous absence is all the more dis­ap­point­ing as Irv­ing has said that the novel is based on his own youth, but it’s unfor­tu­nately typ­i­cal of a book in which the main char­ac­ters seem two-dimensional.

The reviews for the book have been uni­formly harsh: Michiko Kakutani’s review for the New York Times called it “lack­adaisi­cal, weary and hideously over­stuffed,” and Mar­ri­anne Wig­gins ripped it apart as a “mass of lazy, unre­fined writ­ing” in the Wash­ing­ton Post.

Yet the book has still man­aged to debut pretty high on best­seller lists. Dwight Gar­ner the­o­rizes that,

Irving’s brand of leisurely, old-school sto­ry­telling has legions of admir­ers, […], and sales of his new book have been given a push by pro­files of the author in Peo­ple and Enter­tain­ment Weekly that under­scored this novel’s auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal aspects. (Like his book’s hero, Irv­ing had a father who went miss­ing early in his life and, like his book’s hero, he was molested by a much older woman before he was in his teens.)

PS: Kitabkhana tells us that the Post has since apol­o­gized to Irv­ing for Wig­gins’ review, because she was once mar­ried to Salman Rushdie who is best friends with Irv­ing. Hmm.. won­der who Kirsch and Kaku­tani were mar­ried to.

 

The Man Booker longlist for 2005 has been announced, and it might well be the strongest field ever.

McE­wan, Ishuguro and Rus­die are the only ones on the list that I’ve read, and going by some of the reviews reviews Shal­i­mar the Clown has been get­ting, Rushdie’ll prob­a­bly start out as the favorite. (Not this one, though.)

Man­ish has a typ­i­cally com­pre­hen­sive post on the Booker longlist at Sepia Mutiny . (And don’t for­get to read the comments.)

Dumb and Dumber

 Etc.  Comments Off
Aug 102005
 

This and This.

Aug 102005
 

When this movie turns out to be a big hit, I’ll go around telling every­one that Shiva went to school with me at UF and that the moment I read the sen­si­tive short story he sent to Mani­rath­nam with his resume, I knew.

 

The New York Times car­ries an inter­view with V.S Naipaul, part of a pro­file by Rachel Dona­dio titled The Iras­ci­ble Prophet. Naipaul is his usual self in the inter­view: Provoca­tive, grumpy and full of him­self. He dis­dains the novel as an inad­e­quate for­mat , dis­misses Proust as “tedious” and claims to have “lit­tle respect” for Joyce.

[…]although Naipaul said he thought Con­rad was “great” because he “wished to look very, very hard at the world,” he also insisted that Con­rad “had no influ­ence on me.” “Actu­ally, I think ‘A Bend in the River’ is much, much bet­ter than Con­rad,” he said.

But Dona­dio dis­cov­ers this inter­est­ing lit­tle quirk as the con­ver­sa­tion wears on… that “[…] the more dis­mis­sive Naipaul is of a writer, the more likely it is that he has engaged deeply with that writer’s work.” Hmm.

How can some­one so obnox­ious and loud write with so much grace? If Naipaul wrote like he spoke, he’d be Sub­hash Ghai’s screen­writer, but as it turns out, he writes well enough to win the Nobel. Dona­dio explains the dichtomy,

[…] like so many of Naipaul’s utter­ances over the years, seem cal­cu­lated to pro­voke. In his inter­views as in his life, Naipaul is famously iras­ci­ble, dif­fi­cult, con­tra­dic­tory, an ide­o­log­i­cal light­ning rod. Yet in his writ­ing, he is an artist on whom noth­ing is lost. Naipaul addressed this split in his Nobel accep­tance speech, in which he sec­onded Proust’s argu­ment that “a book is the prod­uct of a dif­fer­ent self from the self we man­i­fest in our habits, in our social life, in our vices.” Naipaul’s work is as sub­tle as his inter­views are clamorous.

Link through Amit and Kitabkhana.

Aug 092005
 

Ever since he acquired a polit­i­cal agenda for him­self, John Le Carre’s writ­ing has suf­fered a bit. Although not as bad as the dreary Sin­gle And Sin­gle, The Con­stant Gar­dener is not one of his bet­ter books. Not that it was bad — an off-color Le Carre can run elab­o­rate cir­cles around most peo­ple writ­ing today.

The plot­ting was intri­cate, and the char­ac­ter­i­za­tion and prose were as smooth as ever but the thinly veiled preach­i­ness that lay just beneath the sur­face was too eas­ily dis­cernible. Le Carre had moved away from the nuanced gray’s of his old works and cre­ated a white and black world: The bad guys were a lit­tle too bad (and white), and the good guys were a lit­tle too, well, little.

Iron­i­cally enough, The Con­stant Gar­dener might just pro­vide Le Carre with some­thing that has eluded his books since The Spy Who Came In From The Cold: A good movie adaptation.

The New York Times has a story about how Fer­nando Meirelles, direc­tor of the City of God was roped in to do the movie.

Right away he started tin­ker­ing with Jef­frey Caine’s screen­play. “When John le Carré wrote the story, the story’s seen through a British point of view,” Mr. Meirelles said in an inter­view in New York in June. “And I think when I read the story, I put myself on the Kenyan side because, really, I come from Brazil.” Among other things, Mr. Meirelles wrote sev­eral new African char­ac­ters into the story, not all of whom sur­vived the cut­ting process.

What does remain is a remark­able sense of place: a vivid evo­ca­tion of the Kenyan land­scape and cityscape in one of Nairobi’s most down-and-out neigh­bor­hoods, through which sewage flows in open, rag-cluttered trenches; and track­ing shots of Kib­era, Nairobi’s sprawl­ing, tin-roofed shan­ty­town, which are as enthralling as they are disturbing.

Aug 092005
 

The Hindu Lit­er­ary Review car­ries an inter­view with Alexan­der McCall Smith, the pro­lific, self-effacing author of the best light reads out there today. (Jai Arjun writes a neat reco for Smith here)

If you had to describe your work to an Indian audi­ence, how would you describe it?

I don’t know if I’d be com­fort­able talk­ing about my work. I sup­pose I might say quirky. It’s a bit quirky, a bit humor­ous. Ulti­mately, I want to make read­ers feel bet­ter and more hope­ful. I don’t like depress­ing lit­er­a­ture. Going back to the Narayan nov­els — you really feel sym­pa­thy for the peo­ple involved. It’s a very sim­ple ambi­tion, noth­ing very grand…

I’ll take that any day, thank you.

 

Spoiler Alert

A new régime takes over your coun­try and soon after, goes to war against a vastly supe­rior force. A num­ber of young men, poorly equipped in every way, are sent to fight the war.

The war kills a lot of young peo­ple, but you sur­vive, and are taken pris­oner of war, lodged in a camp on a remote island. The camp is split into two groups — a major­ity of them loyal to the old régime in the coun­try (lets call them the nation­al­ists) and the rest loyal to the new Gov­ern­ment (the loy­al­ists). The for­mer group wants to go back to a coun­try near yours that’s still con­trolled by the old régime, but you left an age­ing mom and a pretty girl­friend behind when you went to war, so you choose to join the loyalists.

Your cap­tors favor the other group — and for the loy­al­ists, the hard grind of the camp is made harder still by the increased hos­til­ity of their cap­tors, and the phys­i­cal abuse they’ve to endure from the nation­al­ists. Yet, some­how, you survive.

Finally, the war ends, and the cap­tors hold a giant court of sorts, where you endure a tremen­dous amount of per­sua­sion to the con­trary and choose to go back to your coun­try. A choice that only a few peo­ple made. A choice that saved a lit­tle bit of face for a nation already reel­ing from a humil­i­at­ing defeat. You are all patri­otic heroes.

You go back home, with the few oth­ers that wanted to. A few weeks into your stay, the Gov­ern­ment labels all of you “shame­less cow­ards” for not dying in the war, and inflicts vary­ing degrees of pun­ish­ment on the group. Death for some, job losses for some, slaps on the wrists for the lucky few.

End Spoiler

Makes no sense, you think? Well, it prob­a­bly won’t, until I tell you that the new régime was Com­mu­nist. Then it all adds up just fine.

Nar­rated in the spare lan­guage of a sol­dier who taught him­self Eng­lish by read­ing boot­legged copies of the Bible, Ha Jin’s War Trash is an out­stand­ing work of fic­tion. Lac­ing together his­tor­i­cal detail with a vivid imag­i­na­tion for what might have been, Jin con­structs an evoca­tive pic­ture of life in a Chi­nese POW camp dur­ing the Korean War. Yu Yuan, the nar­ra­tor is an edu­cated young man, a junior offi­cer who spends his time in the camp torn between an ide­ol­ogy he doesn’t quite like and a fam­ily he loves a lot. His rudi­men­tary knowl­edge of Eng­lish gives him a win­dow far beyond his grade into the events that unfold at the camp.

The camp splits into two groups: one loyal to the Com­mu­nists, and the Nation­al­ists that want to go to Tai­wan. Hier­ar­chies are estab­lished in both the groups — and it is sadly funny to watch the pow­er­less “lead­ers” take them­selves too seri­ously, as they make daily plans about noth­ing and argue end­lessly about worth­less trans­gres­sions. Riots are staged and quelled, and most of the time the plan­ning of protests is an end in itself — a way for bored sol­diers to feel purposeful.

Ha Jin’s bril­liant writ­ing brings even the most mun­dane things to life: the unfold­ing of the friend­ship between a doc­tor treat­ing him and Yuan is a great exam­ple of how his sim­ple, ‘I’ll-just-tell-you-what-happened’ style works aston­ish­ingly well. It could’ve so eas­ily become maudlin with a few extra words. With­out any overt sen­ti­men­tal­ity, you go through vir­tu­ally every emo­tion the char­ac­ters feel. The sim­ple joy of con­coct­ing a song from home-made instru­ments, or the incred­i­ble bore­dom of doing noth­ing day after day after day.

Through it all Yuan is always on the wall — try­ing to decide between the groups. The events in the camp are but a back­drop to the real drama in his mind as he ago­nizes over choices he should’nt have to make: His well-being or his family’s sur­vival? A secure finan­cial future in a free coun­try or a life with his mother and his fiancée?

This is one of those books that you don’t want to end. Chan­dra­has Choud­hury puts it so well, when he says,

[…]a wrench­ing expe­ri­ence asso­ci­ated with pow­er­ful nov­els: that of com­ing towards the close, the last few pages, after which our fort­night– or month-long involve­ment with a set of char­ac­ters and an imag­ined world (no less real for being imag­ined) will abruptly come to an end. Surely this feel­ing is more painful than, say, the news of the death of a dis­tant rel­a­tive or acquain­tance. To post­pone clo­sure, we try to read more slowly, linger over every sen­tence, close the book for a while and drift into our own thoughts.

If Pro­fes­sor Strunk ever wanted an exam­ple to illus­trate what he meant when he wrote,

Vig­or­ous writ­ing is con­cise. A sen­tence should con­tain no unnec­es­sary words, a para­graph no unnec­es­sary sen­tences, for the same rea­son that a draw­ing should have no unnec­es­sary lines and a machine no unnec­es­sary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sen­tences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his sub­jects only in out­line, but that every word tell.

there is no bet­ter exam­ple than this book.

Here’s my addi­tion to the grow­ing list of superla­tives that crit­ics have used to describe War Trash. Wow.

Here’s an excerpt.

© 2012 etcetera Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site