Skip to content

The Brown Parrot – A Review of ‘The White Tiger’ by Aravind Adiga

March 2, 2009

On 14 October 2008, the Booker Committee announced in London that Aravind Adiga will get the Man Booker Prize for his debut novel, ‘The White Tiger’. The writer, Aravind Adiga claims in an interview:

At a time, when India is going through great changes and with China, is likely to inherit the world from the West, it is important that writers like me try to highlight the brutal injustices of society.” He added that criticism by writers like Flaubert, Balzac and Dickens in the 19th century helped England and France become better societies [1]

In a single breath, Adiga takes upon his young self the huge responsibility of highlighting all the ‘brutal injustices’ of India, while feeling proud enough to compare himself with Flaubert, Balzac and Dickens.

One should be cautious while making self-comparisons with great personalities. Dickens wrote about London and English society as it was. Almost all his characters from David Copperfield to Oliver Twist have an autobiographical ring.

Adiga is thrice removed from the society and events he talks about in his book. Born in metropolitan Chennai, educated in Australia, the UK, and the US, he has nothing in common with his protagonist, Balram, a ‘low-caste’ driver from Bihar. This un-authenticity of narrative doesn’t bother Adiga. Indeed, he thinks it is a duty of a writer to go beyond his own experience; to take a leap beyond reality; to plunge into pure fantasy. He believes in writing by remote-sensing.

“I don’t think a novelist should just write about his own experience. Yes, I am the son of a doctor. Yes, I had a rigorous formal education, but for me the challenge as a novelist is to write about people who aren’t anything like me.” [2]

Dickens’ works are not a judgment on English society. His worldview evolves in his works. If we put them chronologically, we can see the intellectual development of Dickens, an observant mind becoming mature.

Evolution vs. Ideological Revelation

What we see in Adiga is not natural evolution, but sudden ideological revelation. He is not trying to learn anything. He knows it all. The ideas are pre-arranged. In the absence of cultural roots, he has ideology to guide him – Secularism. Fantasy and remote-sensing makes up for reality. Worn-out formula-writing replaces creativity. Adiga has hitched his wagon to a star – the star called Secularism in Indian heavens. It is THE Ideology.

Flaubert, the other writer Adiga compares himself with, is as distant from him as possible. Madame Bovary is a psychological drama of an individual, not a statement about French society, while Salambo is a purely artistic venture recapturing a remote event of history. No one who has read even a single work of Flaubert dares to compare him with any writer with a social agenda. It appears that Adiga just threw some random names of writers while being interviewed, without probably having read them.

Balzac is a different story. Again, Adiga has nothing in common with Balzac in the style and grasp of subject matter. Balzac is regarded as one of the founders of realism in European literature. So-called progressive writers in India are fond of comparing themselves with great realistic writers like Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gorky, Dickens, Flaubert, Balzac etc as they think Indian society is in eternal need of a Bolshevik-style revolution. Taking realism as the most abject form of self-denigration, Indian writers harp on ‘social injustices’ and feel proud positioning themselves amongst great writers.

Poverty of Style

On the level of language too, Adiga falls far too short. The style of narration doesn’t match the projected aim to point out the ‘brutal injustices’ of Indian society. His style takes him nearer to the post-modern writing while his aim is as ambitious as of a Communist ideologue. For this purpose Adiga inserts some of the most famous secular slogans in Balram’s speeches, but his narration being post-modern, is personal and individualistic.

Adiga betrays ignorance of rural Indian society – not that he knows urban India – at many points. For instance, he asserts that many water buffalos can be bought in seven thousand rupees. Let him purchase just one! [3]

According to Adiga, the salient features of India are:

- Every traditional Indian village has a blue-movie (pornographic) theatre [4]
- No one can enter Indian malls without wearing shoes. Shoes are compulsory [5]
- No low-caste man can ever enter an Indian mall. Even if he enters stealthily, he is then caught, beaten and publicly humiliated [6]
- In India, if an owner runs over a man with his car, his driver has to go to jail instead [7]
- If a servant steals anything, then his entire family, back home, is ritually lynched to death (their women being repeatedly raped) [8]
- Every Indian book stall sells ‘rape magazines’ [9]
- There are separate markets for servants [10]
- Indian brothels take extra money from servants, called ‘Working-class surcharge’ [11]
- Sadhus are actually homosexual hookers who get paid to be buggered by foreigners [12]
- Indian caste system is worse, or at least as bad as the secret police of a totalitarian state [13]

The last claim is the central theme of the novel. The Indian caste system is called the ‘Rooster Coop.’ Adiga compares the caste system with the secret police of a totalitarian state. This comparison is preposterous. Communism accounted for more than twenty million deaths in USSR, sixty-five million in China, one million in Vietnam, two million in North Korea, two million in Cambodia, one million in Eastern Europe, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and millions of others [14]. And all this in less than seventy years! Does caste in its history of more than five thousand years have anything remotely comparable to equal this record?

The only place where he innovates is in hurting Hindu religious sentiment. The polytheism of Hindus is mocked as:

“How quickly do you think you could kiss 36,000,004 arses?” [15]

Balram is called as the ‘sidekick’ of Krishna. [16]

The hero goes on to murder his employers, earlier called Ram and Sita!  Lord Krishna is called as a ‘chauffeur’ [17]. About, Kali, the Hindu goddess:

“…I looked at the magnetic stickers of goddess Kali with her skulls and her long red tongue – I stuck my tongue out at the old witch. I yawned.” [18]

Hanuman is called the slave-god of Hindus, an imposition which still makes the low-caste slaves of the upper-caste.

“Do you know about Hanuman, sir? He was the faithful servant of the god Rama, and we worship him in our temples because he is a shining example of how to serve your masters with absolute fidelity, love and devotion…. These are the kinds of gods they have foisted on us, Mr. Jiabao. Understand, now, how hard it is for a man to win his freedom in India.” [19]

In 1994, Christian missionary Fr Augustine Kanjamala of Pune wrote an article in Deccan Chronicle titled, ‘Replies to Arun Shourie’: “Harijans worship deities of lower rank, while caste Hindus worship deities of higher rank. For instance, Hanuman is worshipped by Harijans and Rama is worshipped by upper caste in the same village… Hanuman was the servant of Rama; Harijans are servants of higher caste Hindus. A close affinity between their hierarchy of gods and the hierarchy of society” [20]

Later, indefatigable Arun Shourie had a face-to-face debate with father Kanjamala at Hyderabad. Shourie said, “This is insinuation, it is deliberate distortion… I can assure you that Hanuman Ji is as dear to high caste Hindus, as to low caste Hindu. If after two hundred years of Christianity in India… this is your understanding of India, much needs to be done… But there is a question… Does the servant and master relationship, high caste and low caste relationship, also apply to other Hindu gods? If not, then how does your thesis stand? Nandi is ridden by the Shiva. Is it that the low caste people are asked to worship Nandi? And high caste should not worship Nandi? What you have written in your article is a foolish thing to write” [21]

Booker Scandal

But in 2008, we found Adiga repeating this missionary propaganda again. Adiga is in the line of a new breed of writers like Arundhati Roy and Kiran Desai, who being Christian or having sympathy with Christianity, share hatred of Hinduism and Hindu society. It is not coincidence, but a deliberate act of the Booker committee to award all three. They have ignored really good novels from Pakistan. Why? Because by awarding Pakistani writers like Mohammed Hanif and Mohsin Hamid, the Left will gain nothing in the bargain. You may call it the Booker Scandal. This is how the alliance of Marxists and missionaries works against Hindu society.

Writing a novel in India is neither an intellectual nor spontaneous venture. It is organized according to the formula set by the demands of secularism, seeded during the Independence struggle and developed and codified during the Nehruvian era.

The literary establishment in India expects from a writer: a complete submission to THE Ideology, cramming all its popular slogans and clichés; choosing a story and then fitting all the ‘facts’ in it; inventing facts to patch up gaping holes; and putting in as many features of the formula as possible.

A writer is expected to follow the secular formula, which is to show how Hinduism is inferior to other religions; how superstitious and stupid Hindus are; how evil caste-system is; how vile Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are, and how suppressed Shudras are. Show how violent Hindu mythology is, while the very word of Islam means peace. Show that just like Islam and Christianity, Hinduism is also an import in India, having no original claim. Make Hindu history in India as short as possible. Extend Christian and Islamic claims on Indian soil as long back in history as possible [22]. Throw in some exotic stories of widow burning, caste discrimination, infanticide etc. to pepper this secular curry.

Do not, in any case, criticize Islam! Try to extol its virtues, and if not possible just keep mum about its atrocities. Show how Muslims are extremely discriminated in every field such as education and employment. Do not criticize Christianity and its violent conversion activities.

Shift the focus of readers from primary problems like the Islamic destruction of India to secondary problems like corruption, poverty, population, unemployment etc.

This is the formula which guides every new book and every new writer in India. There is no new voice, no new question, nothing new under the sky. All has been discovered. Every question has been asked, every answer has been given by THE FORMULA, and every problem has been solved by it. What remains to be done is to repeat the secular slogans again and again. For this no tigers are required. Parrots are more than enough for the job.

History of The Formula

This formula has a history, which is very well portrayed by Dr. Ravi Shanker Kapoor in his book More Equal than Others: A Study of the Indian Left, 2000 [23]. The literary establishment of India is guided by leftist intellectuals. All over the world, Communists have always infiltrated institutions in order to influence public opinion. Giving these institutions a neutral veneer, they sell Communist propaganda without letting the masses know the truth. They also fool some intellectuals in furthering their propaganda. So Bengal Friends of the Soviet Union (BFOTSU) was created with the blessings of Rabindranath Tagore [24].
Most importantly, leftists have infiltrated all the literary, arts and fine arts institutions in India. Thus pro-communist All India Progressive Writers’ Association (AIPWA) was formed in which eminent people like Mulk Raj Anand, Munshi Premchand, Sarojini Naidu, Krishan Chander, KA Abbas, Shivdan Singh Chauhan, Ramananda Chatterjee and Ram Bilas Sharma participated [25]. In the field of theatre too, the influence of leftists was predominant. The Indian People’s Theater Association (IPTA) is still very influential and continues to shape the world-view of the youth [26].

Novels in India, like Bollywood movies, are produced according to guidelines dictated by the establishment. If a new writer follows the secular formula, his books will be bought by all schools, colleges, universities and most importantly, all libraries across the country. For a year or two he will be interviewed by the media, invited to speak on the ‘problems’ of India and their ‘solutions’. The ‘intellectual circles’ of Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata will throw some parties where these writers will fume and fret about the evils of Indian society. Pretty secure career.

Dr. Ravi Shanker Kapoor elaborates in another book How India’s Intellectuals Spread Lies, 2007 [27] that the motive is to drill guilt into the hearts and minds of the Hindu majority, so all ills of Indian society are blamed on Hindus. Adiga too indulges in guilt-mongering against Hindus. The Leftists have been largely successful in their endeavours; Hindus have been defensive.

The guilt pervades further, permeating the public debate, infecting the body-politic, dominating the minds and hearts of those who matter… [28] In India, more than half a century of guilt-mongering and other Leftist tricks have created a climate in which Marxist lies pass as gospel truth [29]

This is what Nobel Laureate V S Naipaul resents when he comments about Indian writing. Commenting on Nirad Chaudhari’s intellectual incompetence, Naipaul says:

“Sixty years after Independence that problem is still there. India has no autonomous intellectual life.” [30]

His words ring true in the context of Indian writers in general and Adiga in particular. There is no autonomous intellectual life in India. The literary concepts are dictated by the secular establishment.

“… no national literature has been created like this at such a remove, where the books are published by people outside, judged by people outside, and read to a large extent by people outside.” [31]

Yes! No national literature has ever been created in a foreign language. In spite of tall claims and revolutionary agenda, the paradox of Indian English writing remains – a literature divorced from its native language. Indian writers rarely speak and never read or write in any of the Indian languages.

Most Indian writers who have won awards like Booker no longer live in India or have no connections with the rural India they claim to write about. They are rootless; hence their works lack authenticity. More the rootlessness, more the arrogance. Thus Arundhati Roy writes about the sexual attraction between zygotic brother and sister; Kiran Desai talks about non-existent ‘Garwhali Terrorism’, but not about the existent Islamic or Naxalite terrorism; and Adiga is worried about pornographic theatre in Indian villages!

Comparing Indian literature with Russian, Naipaul comments:

“In the nineteenth century, Dostoyevsky and Turgenev and Gogol and Herzen lived for some time outside their native Russia; but they wrote in Russian for Russian readers and (for all of them except Herzen) Russia was where they were published and had their readers. Russia was where their ideas fermented.”

“Nineteenth-century Russian writing created an idea of the Russian character and the Russian soul. There is no equivalent creation, or the beginning of one, in Indian writing. India remains hidden. Indian writers, to speak generally, seem to know only about their own families, and their places of work. It is the Indian way of living and consequently the Indian way of seeing. The rest of the country is taken for granted, and seen superficially, as it was even by the young Nehru…” [32]

So true and fitting on a writer like Adiga. The establishment prefers imitation which is safe over innovation which can be dangerous, ideology over reality, slogans and clichés over facts and truth. An ideological world-view makes up for the ignorance of history. A concern for the ‘brutal injustices’ of India makes up for lack of creative writing. Of course the ‘brutal injustices’ exclude Islamic terrorism and missionary activities.

Rooster Coop

No writer is recognized by the secular establishment if he doesn’t conform fully to the Formula. The mechanism which keeps the writer on track can be best described by Adiga’s own metaphor for the caste-system, the ‘Rooster Coop’. This Rooster Coop is maintained by the Formula, manned by their faithful ‘intellectuals’. The Coop is full of parrots who endlessly repeat the secular slogans. Once in a while if a parrot takes courage to break out of the coop and sing a different tune, he is immediately silenced by the intellectual community, Indian media and academia. His name is tarnished, his reputation destroyed, his positions in the Coop, lost. He is made to feel the fault of his heretic ways and finally he is brought back to the fold. Almost all of those who contribute to this mechanism are themselves the captives of the Coop.

But as Adiga would have it, the Coop has a mechanism of its own. The parrots imprisoned by this Coop help the Coop to remain intact. If one of their fellow parrots ever tries to do some unparroty acts, his legs are pulled back by his own mates. No one is ever allowed to leave this Rooster Coop of Secularism. The system goes on. The Coop remains intact. There are ever new parrots in the Coop, but all of them keep parroting the old tune. Adiga is no different.

Poverty and corruption are made a fetish in Indian writing as if they are not secondary problems having some primary cause, but the basic instinct of Indian civilization. If a writer tries to probe primary problems he is immediately labelled anti-poor, fascist and Hindu fundamentalist. The Coop is so strong that no insider is able to see the truth. Only an outsider like Naipaul is able to perceive the reality and express it courageously. Recognizing India as a wounded civilization he goes back to medieval times to search for the primary problems of India:

“There is a new kind of coming and going in the world these days. Arabia, lucky again, has spread beyond its deserts. And India is again at the periphery of this new Arabian world, as much as it had been in the eight century, when the new religion of Islam spread in all directions and the Arabs – led, it is said, by a seventeen year-old boy – overran the Indian kingdom of Sind. That was only an episode, the historians say. But Sind is not a part of India today; India has shrunk since that Arab incursion. No civilization was so little equipped to cope with the outside world; no country was so easily raided and plundered, and learned so little from its disasters.” [33]

Naipaul goes beyond the immediate and the superficial. He goes beyond poverty, unemployment and other clichés and finds the root of present Indian misery in its Islamic defeat during the middle ages.

its [India’s] independence has meant more than the going away of the British; that the India to which Independence came was a land of far older defeat; that the purely Indian past died a long time ago.” [34]

He thinks it is necessary to go beyond these secondary causes:

“An inquiry about India, even an inquiry about the Emergency has quickly to go beyond the political. It has to be an inquiry about Indian attitudes: it has to be an inquiry about the civilization itself, as it is.” [35]

But these are untouchable subjects in the Rooster Coop. With every new addition to the Secular Indian tradition, the writers become even more confident of their worn-out formula.

Not surprisingly, Naipaul has this to say about Indian writers:

“The education of the new Indian writers – and nowadays some of them have even been to writing schools – also gets in the way. It seems to them they have the most enormous choice when, in imitation of the successful people who have gone before, they settle down to do their own book. They are not bursting with a wish to say anything. Nothing is going to force itself out in its own way; they are guided in the main by imitation…. This is where India begins to get lost” [36]

Imitation is the hallmark of Indian formula-writing. Adiga is an imitation of his predecessors like Arundhati Roy, who were an imitation of writers like Mulk Raj Anand and Nirad Chaudhary, who in turn were an imitation of yet others… a tradition of imitation going back to the times of Lord Macaulay. In fact, he inaugurated this tradition in India in his famous note to Lord Bentinck, the then Governor-General of India – Minute of Education on India in February 1835:

“We must at present do our best to form a class who maybe interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; the class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” [37]

This defines Adiga’s intellectual ancestry. In many ways, Adiga’s book is not different from ‘Untouchable’ of Mulk Raj Anand, as artificial, as superficial, as far from reality, as incapable of asking questions, as faithful in following the intellectually bankrupt tradition of Secularism.

Looking at the ruins of the Hindu kingdom Vijaynagar, at the hands of Muslims, Naipaul reflects over the origin of the current intellectual bankruptcy of India:

“…I began to wonder about the intellectual depletion that must have come to India with the invasions and conquests of the last thousand years. What happened in Vijaynagar happened, in varying degrees, in other parts of the country. In the north, ruin lies on ruin: Moslem ruin on Hindu ruin… In the history books, in the accounts of wars and conquests and plunder, the intellectual depletion passes unnoticed… India absorbs and outlasts its conquerors, Indians say. But at Vijaynagar, among the pilgrims, I wondered whether intellectually for a thousand years India hadn’t always retreated before its conquerors and whether, in its periods of apparent revival, Indian hadn’t only been making itself archaic again, intellectually smaller, always vulnerable.

The crisis of India is not only political or economic. The larger crisis is of a wounded old civilization that has at last become aware of its inadequacies and is without the intellectual means to move ahead.” [38]

The imitation has seeped into the sub-conscious of Indian psyche, and Indians are no longer aware of it. Thus Adiga thinks of himself as pioneer in bringing out the problems of India, but he is just parroting the secular slogans:

“The middle classes think of themselves still as victims of colonial rule. But there is no point anymore in someone like me thinking of myself as a victim of a colonial oppressor.” [39]

Commenting on India’s inability to judge, Naipaul says:

“India has no means of judging. India is hard and materialist. What it knows best about Indian writers and books are their advances and their prizes. There is little discussion about the substance of a book or its literary quality or the point of view of the writer. Much keeps on being said in the Indian press about Indian writing as an aspect of the larger modern Indian success, but literary criticism is still hardly known as an art. The most important judgments of an Indian book continue to be imported.” [40]

Nothing else can be more representative of the intellectual bankruptcy of rootless Indian writers than the fact that they do not even realize it. India is full of parrots, green, red, white, black, brown… but none of them are conscious that they are actually parrots. Some even think that they are tigers…even white tigers!

REFERENCES

1] http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/16adiga.htm October 16, 2008
2] Ibid.
3] Adiga, Aravid. 2008. The White Tiger, Harper Collins India, New Delhi, p.236
4] Ibid. p.23
5] Ibid. p.148
6]Ibid. p.152
7] Ibid. p.309
8] Ibid. p.176-177
9] Ibid. p.149
10] Ibid. p.204
11] Ibid. p.232
12] Ibid. p.275
13] Ibid. p.175
14] Courtois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999, p.4
15] Adiga, Aravid. 2008. The White Tiger, Harper Collins India, New Delhi,  p.9
16] Ibid. p.14
17] Ibid. p.187
18] Ibid. p.156-157
19] Ibid. p.19
20] Arun Shourie and his Christian Critics, 1995, Voice of India, New Delhi, p.45-46
21] Arun Shourie and his Christian Critics, 1995, Voice of India, New Delhi, p.61-62
22] Adiga, Aravid. 2008. The White Tiger, Harper Collins India, New Delhi, p.272. The theory used here is Aryan Invasion Theory, a tool used by the British against Indians to keep them divided and to justify their presence on the Indian soil, as the theory claims that Aryans or the North Indians are also foreigners and came from Central Asia to India around 1500 BC.
23] Kapoor, Ravi Shanker More Equal than Others: A Study of the Indian Left, Vision Books, New Delhi, 2000
24] Ibid. p. 20
25] Ibid. p. 21
26] Ibid. p. 22
27] Kapoor, Ravi Shanker How India’s Intellectuals Spread Lies, Vision Books, New Delhi, 2007
28] Ibid. p. 158
29] Ibid. p. 159
30] Naipaul V S, A Writer’s People, Picador India, 2007, p. 191
31] Ibid. p. 192
32] Ibid. p. 192-193
33] Naipaul V S, India: A Wounded Civilization, Penguin India, 1979, p. 7
34] Ibid. p. 8
35] Ibid. p. 9
36] Naipaul V S, A Writer’s People, Picador India, 2007, p. 193
37] Macaulay, T B Minute of Education on India 2nd February 1835
38] Naipaul V S, India: A Wounded Civilization, Penguin India, 1979, p. 17-18
39] http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/16adiga.htm October 16, 2008
40] Naipaul V S, A Writer’s People, Picador India, 2007, p. 193-194

6 Comments leave one →
  1. CodeNameV permalink
    April 30, 2009 9:48 AM

    Hello Pankaj,

    arrived here from your guest post on Shantanu’s blog. Added to my regular reading list.

    Thanks for an eye opening review. Next time I find a fool who feels proud of Aravind Adiga and other literary bozos, I will direct them to this post. It about sums up the complete stupidity with which Indian media heralded Aravind as new prodigy for indian literature. I am sad that most of the people in the country are neither able to nor trying to see what is behind the viel!!

    Waiting to read more.

  2. victimofprejudice permalink
    April 30, 2009 3:06 PM

    Dear Pankaj

    Well what I wanted to say has been said already by CodeNameV. Thanks a million for such exposures of Hooker prizes!

  3. Pankaj Saksena permalink
    April 30, 2009 6:43 PM

    @ CodeNameV

    Thanks a lot Code! I hope you keep decorating my blog with your comments.

  4. Pankaj Saksena permalink
    April 30, 2009 6:44 PM

    @ victim of prejudice

    Thanks a lot! and you gave a new and hilarious term which I will use somewhere in future. Hooker! That’s exactly what it is! Hurray for coming up with such a great name!

  5. vivek permalink
    November 10, 2010 11:10 PM

    Well written. I did not know of this new theory that Hanuman is a slave god. I recall reading in Maria Misra recent book on Indian history that nobody could tell her why big statues of Hanuman were coming up all over the place.
    It seems the fact that Madhavacarya is held to be incarnation of Vayu/Hanuman- and that his Theistic philosophy gave a new impetus to devotional religion- is not at all the correct explanation. Evil upper castes are putting up the statues to enslave the lower castes. However, Madhavacharya’s point was that philosophical Monism is elitist- privileging the cultivated leisured class who alone find intellectual relish in abstract metaphysical conundrums. He champions Theism as the ordinary religion of working people. In Bhakti all are equal. If God exists then to speak of one man being superior to another is like saying one grain of sand is bigger than another.
    However, I don’t agree w.r.t Arundhati Roy. ‘God of small things’ is on the theme of the return of Orestes- i.e. the Electra myth which Freud at one point wanted to use to explain female psychology. Roy presents a militantly feminist version of the story such that all men are either sociopaths or (the brother) ineffectual hebephrenics or else they are simply killed off. However there is an engagingly dotty side to her- and the women aren;’t presented as plaster-saints either.
    The fact that she shows Christians inflicting atrocities on Dalits while the Communist Party official is simply a naked careerist, indicates she was not just a stooge of the Secular ideology. At one point in the book, it occurs to her that Kerala is connected with Parasuram who was forced to kill his own mother- so that could be brought in to suit her purpose. But she doesn’t go down that route because she knows the people who read her have no clue as to who Parasuram was and no interest in finding out.
    I agree Kiran Desai is utterly hilarious. No one seems to have taken her to task for her elitist attitude towards the Hill people. They are simply grown-up children misled by agitators- precisely what the colonialists said about the people of Africa and Asia.
    I also disagree about Mulk Raj Anand. He was happy to do research on Indian languages and not just a careerist. What is alarming is how this ideology has degenerated. Shourie has shown how in historiography, simple plagiarism replaced even the pretense of scholarship.
    It is interesting to see Roy develop as a writer by ‘regressing to the mean’- i.e. becoming a shrill polemicist and accepting a hard-line position she rejected many years ago when she was still relatively poor and, in consequence, capable of using her eyes and thinking a little for herself.

    • December 7, 2010 1:12 PM

      Just one comment: Regressing to the mean would mean a huge improvement for Arundhati Roy :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 228 other followers

%d bloggers like this: