Skip to main content

Book man and his follies



Those who live by the book will die by the book’s folly.

“After all, as a book man, I should judge a book for its literary merit, irrespective of its subject matter.  Poppycock.”

The above quote is from Vikram Kapur’s article in today’s [4 Nov] Hindu Literary Review.  I would have certainly expected more sense from The Hindu editors than this poppycock from Mr Kapur who claims to be “a book man” but depends more on Google than books.

Mr Kapur’s article is poppycock par excellence.  He says Hilary Mantel did not deserve the Man Booker Prize for her first novel, Wolf Hall, merely for:

1.      Thomas Cromwell’s name had to be searched by Kapur on Google.
2.      Henry VIII married 6 times.
3.      Thomas Cromwell did not have the temerity to murder Henry VIII unlike Oliver Cromwell who did possess that temerity to kill his monarch and hence is familiar to Kapur.
4.      The theme of Wolf Hall is not relevant today since “there is no altercation between the Protestants and the Catholics.”  The altercation is between “the West and fundamentalist Islam.” [emphasis added]
5.      The novel is not set “in the days of the Crusades.”

I wonder why Mr Kapur did not bother to consider the title of the novel at least.  And the repeated statements in the novel about “man being wolf to man.”  Wolf HallI is about the theme of man being wolf to man, a theme which is relevant at any time. 

Kapur admits that he did not even bother to read Mantel’s novels.  Having searched the Google to ascertain that his knowledge about Henry VIII’s 6 marriages and Thomas Cromwell’s role in the monarch’s life, Kapur decided that it was “the end of my desire to read Bring up the Bodies [Mantel’s second novel to win the Man Booker Prize, Mantel being the only writer to win the Prize two times in the 44-year history of the Prize] or, for that matter, its predecessor Wolf Hall.”

In short, Kapur did not even read Mantel’s books.  What right does he have to write anything about her books?  Why did The Hindu publish his “poppycock”?  And that too in a literary review supplement?
Kapur thinks Mantel won the Prize because of the British nostalgia for its ancient eminence!  But why on earth would The Hindu want to support the British nostalgia?  I don’t know.   Why in hell would The Hindu publish an article on an author by a writer who has not even bothered to read the author?  That indeed is a mystery to me.

Is The Hindu really competing with The Times of India? J

If yes, I won’t laugh really.

But I am also a man who loves books.


PS. I have already bought Mantel’s second Prize Winner novel.  Looking forward to time for reading it after completing all the never-ending duties assigned to me by my ever-increasing number of bosses…

Comments

  1. Flies like Kapur are part and parcel of the market. What is tragic though, they are being accorded undue prominence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really wanted to ignore Kapur. But the temptation to put my aversion in black and white became irresistible. Hence this blog. I mailed a letter to the editor of the Hindu too.

      Delete
  2. Sounds like they had some empty space and didn't know what to do with it. To me, it reflects badly on the newspaper rather than on the person who wrote that article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does reflect badly on the newspaper, Deepak ji. That's my major problem. The Hindu's literary supplement is something I used to rely on for substantial articles. The paper is corroding my trust.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

T he Sarayu carried more tears than water. Ayodhya was a sad kingdom. Dasaratha was a good king. He upheld dharma – justice and morality – as best as he could. The citizens were apparently happy. Then, one day, it all changed. One person is enough to change the destiny of a whole kingdom. Who was that one person? Some say it was Kaikeyi, one of the three official wives of Dasaratha. Some others say it was Manthara, Kaikeyi’s chief maid. Manthara was a hunchback. She was the caretaker of Kaikeyi right from the latter’s childhood; foster mother, so to say, because Kaikeyi had no mother. The absence of maternal influence can distort a girl child’s personality. With a foster mother like Manthara, the distortion can be really bad. Manthara was cunning, selfish, and morally ambiguous. A severe physical deformity can make one worse than all that. Manthara was as devious and manipulative as a woman could be in a men’s world. Add to that all the jealousy and ambition that insecure peo...

Abdullah’s Religion

O Abdulla Renowned Malayalam movie actor Mohanlal recently offered special prayers for Mammootty, another equally renowned actor of Kerala. The ritual was performed at Sabarimala temple, one of the supreme Hindu pilgrimage centres in Kerala. No one in Kerala found anything wrong in Mohanlal, a Hindu, praying for Mammootty, a Muslim, to a Hindu deity. Malayalis were concerned about Mammootty’s wellbeing and were relieved to know that the actor wasn’t suffering from anything as serious as it appeared. Except O Abdulla. Who is this Abdulla? I had never heard of him until he created an unsavoury controversy about a Hindu praying for a Muslim. This man’s Facebook profile describes him as: “Former Professor Islahiaya, Media Critic, Ex-Interpreter of Indian Ambassador, Founder Member MADHYAMAM.” He has 108K followers on FB. As I was reading Malayalam weekly this morning, I came to know that this Abdulla is a former member of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Kerala , a fundamentalist organisation. ...

Bharata: The Ascetic King

Bharata is disillusioned yet again. His brother, Rama the ideal man, Maryada Purushottam , is making yet another grotesque demand. Sita Devi has to prove her purity now, years after the Agni Pariksha she arranged for herself long ago in Lanka itself. Now, when she has been living for years far away from Rama with her two sons Luva and Kusha in the paternal care of no less a saint than Valmiki himself! What has happened to Rama? Bharata sits on the bank of the Sarayu with tears welling up in his eyes. Give me an answer, Sarayu, he said. Sarayu accepted Bharata’s tears too. She was used to absorbing tears. How many times has Rama come and sat upon this very same bank and wept too? Life is sorrow, Sarayu muttered to Bharata. Even if you are royal descendants of divinity itself. Rama had brought the children Luva and Kusha to Ayodhya on the day of the Ashvamedha Yagna which he was conducting in order to reaffirm his sovereignty and legitimacy over his kingdom. He didn’t know they w...

Empuraan and Ramayana

Maggie and I will be watching the Malayalam movie Empuraan tomorrow. The tickets are booked. The movie has created a lot of controversy in Kerala and the director has decided to impose no less than 17 censors on it himself. I want to watch it before the jingoistic scissors find its way to the movie. It is surprising that the people of Kerala took such exception to this movie when the same people had no problem with the utterly malicious and mendacious movie The Kerala Story (2023). [My post on that movie, which I didn’t watch, is here .] Empuraan is based partly on the Gujarat riots of 2002. The riots were real and the BJP’s role in it (Mr Modi’s, in fact) is well-known. So, Empuraan isn’t giving the audience any falsehood as The Kerala Story did. Moreover, The Kerala Story maligned the people of Kerala while Empuraan is about something that happened in the faraway Gujarat quite long ago. Why are the people of Kerala then upset with Empuraan ? Because it tells the truth, M...

Empuraan – Review

Revenge is an ancient theme in human narratives. Give a moral rationale for the revenge and make the antagonist look monstrously evil, then you have the material for a good work of art. Add to that some spices from contemporary politics and the recipe is quite right for a hit movie. This is what you get in the Malayalam movie, Empuraan , which is running full houses now despite the trenchant opposition to it from the emergent Hindutva forces in the state. First of all, I fail to understand why so much brouhaha was hollered by the Hindutvans [let me coin that word for sheer convenience] who managed to get some 3 minutes censored from the 3-hour movie. The movie doesn’t make any explicit mention of any of the existing Hindutva political parties or other organisations. On the other hand, Allahu Akbar is shouted menacingly by Islamic terrorists, albeit towards the end. True, the movie begins with an implicit reference to what happened in Gujarat in 2002 after the Godhra train burnin...