Literature has always been an elite pastime. The intellectual caviar of the rich and privileged. It is one of the estuaries where the old rich and new rich commingle, muddying the waters of class,
caste, race and lineage, providing wannabes with an instant In, has-beens with an extension on warranty. WASPY-old Boston Brahmin dynasties mix with former purveyors of dynamite, earthmoving equipment, farming land redevelopers, to name only three of the key backers of major literary prizes.
It used to be that the literary prize functions were the most notable events of the high-society calendar. They have now been usurped, shoved aside, or in some cases, subsumed by the chic trend of litfests. But at heart, they are really just the same thing: people with money that was earned from everything but art eager to spend some of that money on the apparent patronage of art. Old money, new money, same old bottle.
Thanks to the happiness of searchable tags, I did a quick look-through of my invites to literary festivals over the past few years. An astonishing sum of 143 invites appear to have filled my inbox, rivalling spam mails for Cialis and penis-lengthening devices. That doesn’t include the phone invites or the occasional (but now rare) snail-mailed letter. Even discounting an overlap of invitations—many have tried more than once, using alternate ‘contacts’ in the hope that an old friend or colleague would be more persuasive—that is still a staggering number of litfest invitations over the past four years or so.
I’ve had the distinction of turning down every single one of them. Including the ones that offer return business class airfare for myself and spouse, plus a three-day all-expenses-paid trip to London for an exclusive event for which the organiser, a self-declared “huge fan”, even claimed to have a sponsor in place. That remains a standing invitation, repeated annually, as do several others. There are also the usual share of miffed missives berating me for not supporting literary ventures, not interacting with my readers, blah blah blah.
The thing is, I actually do see the point of literary festivals. They seem like great fun actually. You get to extricate your superglued bum from that writing chair, fly to some spot where you would usually think of taking the family for a vacation, see and be seen, have a few laughs, talk a lot, read aloud a bit, faff around, smile for pics, then return said bum to said chair and say to the endangered species on your screensaver, “That wasn’t so bad.”
Now multiply that by 143. Or to be fair, about 30 times a year, more as time passes, since litfests in India are like rabbits in Australia. If an author, any author, attends 30 litfests a year, that would mean at least three days every fortnight, not including travel, recovery—these things can be exhausting, I am told—and the usual travel bug, the follow-up meetings and interviews, the pre-meetings and interviews, and the like. Some litfests go on for five days, others for just three. That is an average of 200 days a year spent travelling, talking, seeing and being seen.
Do you know people who spend 200 days travelling for work? Do you know how they feel about their jobs after a few years? Do they gush about the glamour of travel, of meeting new people, of 5 am flights and midnight meals in airport cafetarias? And that’s their job.
An author’s job is writing. You may not look like a movie star, you may not have a TV personality or a great voice, may not be eloquent and charming in person, or dress sharp or give great quotes, but you write a great book, people love reading your work, and that is the magic of books. It is the only form of entertainment left that a person can enjoy alone, engaged in that indescribable interaction between the word and the mind that nothing else can provide. It is the last form of pure storytelling that connects the writer and the reader directly, from my hand to your eyes, my heart to your heart. No intermediaries required. No commercial breaks. No advertisements. No movie stars, VFX, 3D glasses or A.R. Rahman OST. Just great writing and you. The last great love story.
Yes, I know there are authors who manage to attend a whole bunch of litfests and still produce great books. But over time, which improves the most: their onstage banter or their writing? I cannot quote you statistics showing that the writers who frequent litfests most often also tend to show a downslide in literary output or quality, but then I cannot show you the converse either: no writer ever claimed that litfests improve his or her writing.
So why do all the Nobel winners and Booker winners turn up then? Perhaps because they are still tied to the age-old belief that artists need patrons. Rich, powerful, influential, well-connected patrons. Legacy publishing has thrived on its nepotism after all. The Anna Hazares of the world can struggle to reform civil service till their last fast, but they will never dare to even touch the hem of the golden inner circle. In the publishing world, if the media magnate who owns the publishing house has a son or daughter eligible for the job, you can be sure he or she will ascend to the seniormost post in that publishing house.
If a senior editor has a brother, a sister, a friend, or even a lover who writes a book, you can expect it to get published sooner than that of the most talented unknown. If a writer with a book of short stories comes from the right family and has the right connections, expect that anthology to be promoted and sold with far greater hype than the most brilliant work of literature penned by a hungry young debutant with no social connections and no social status. Publishing people tend to be from the same schools, colleges, social circles, and of course, the same communities and clans.
How many non-Hindu non-Brahmin professionals are employed in Indian publishing? How many are permitted to rise to the top of their firms? How many authors who lack the proper connections are shunned and ignored only because their work came without a recommendation from another editor, socialite friend, or even an upper-class or upper-caste nod.
Maharajahs recommending artists to other maharajahs. Or maharanis as the case may be, since gender equality is one of the few bastions Indian publishing has been able to breach, thankfully. But still patrons who believe that they are the gatekeepers of culture, and that it is their responsibility to keep the riffraff from the door, the Philistines outside the temple, the low-castes outside the Brahmin sanctum.
Litfests are only a new chic trend indulged in by this inner circle. Book prizes remain a favourite sport, but litfests add a new level of razzmatazz to the same-old same-old. Old booze in new bottles. It is really just about the money, honey. The biz of fizz. Talking about books is so much sexier than actually sitting at home reading them. Tweeting non-stop all day long about Rushdie attending/not attending/attending/not attending the Jaipur LitFest is so much more entertaining than actually reading the new Rushdie; tweeting from a fest while listening to Rushdie tops it all.
It’s a private party and even though the line says “Everyone’s Invited”, they retain the right to decide who “Everyone” is. Or anyone. All that money, all that effort, all that energy, organisation, coordination, travelling, planning, operational logistics, talking and debating, sassing and faffing, boozing and schmoozing, it’s not about books at all. It’s about riding on the goodwill and glamour generated by books and literature, great writing and great authors, taking all that classy chic intellectual pride and amortising it into sponsor-sized chunks of social currency.
Litfests are about the power of the people who manage them, attend them, sponsor them, promote them, earn from them. Maharajahs underwriting kavi sammelans. Not because they think poetry must be promoted. But because poetry promoted lavishly is sexy. The actual act of living, experiencing, writing, revising and producing great poetry is not.
Litfests are to literature what lavish movie premieres are to great filmmaking. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. They would promote the movie on exactly the same scale if it was a turkey (even if they knew it was a turkey) or the greatest film ever made. It is about rich and powerful patrons—even if they aren’t individually wealthy, they still have the power of the corporate chequebook at hand—celebrating their superiority over the unwashed masses who just want a good book to read. Or, as in my case, a good book to write.
You and I, the people who actually love books, love reading them quietly, curling up and enjoying the power of printed words (or digitised e-ink) to enthrall, illuminate, elevate us, we are just the common man. We don’t count at all. We are not sexy enough to matter to those lofty Levites. Mere Marxists to Maharajahs. At least I am. And I am proud to be.
Ashok Banker is right when he says that publishing is a closed world for those who don’t have the proper connections (Luetic Marxists for Levite Maharajahs, Jan 30). Glamorous litfests are not necessary for an author to be loved or appreciated by an audience. Discussion forums on the internet work just as well.
Amitabha Basu, New Delhi
Mr Banker, I think you’ve let your prejudices run away with you. What you have come up with is a rant. There is a point in there, but could it not have been elucidated a little less shrilly? Maybe it would have allowed your readers to appreciate some of the valid points you raise. If you do not like attending festivals, no one else should, is it?
While I fully understand Ashok Banker’s ‘letting-your-hair-down’ style, I don’t understand the bitterness that comes through.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
please expalin the title
I liked the article, but I think the title is nonsensical- i think simplicity is the essence of great writing and that should go for the title/headline.
Ashok Banker forgot to mention the other great attractions in elitist events like book fests. In addition to the booze, there's also the other vice of the carnal variety. It is hard to imagine that a lot of good looking and rich men and women will just go to sleep after dinner during these events. Ashok Banker must really upset with the guy who included his spouse when he offered him that free ticket to London. It may have been akin to putting a kid in a candy store with his legs in chains.
Mr Banker is right when he says that the world of publishing is a closed world for those with no proper connections to the right people inside this world. A good book or piece of writing should make the reader enjoy the story being told, or think about the perspective of the world around us that the author is presenting before us. It should stimulate discussions among readers about the author's opinions, about the solutions to social and other problems presented by the author, etc. This can be done in reader's discussion forums, real discussions in a room or virtual discussions through the Internet these days. Glamorous 'literary fests' are not necessary for an author to be really loved or appreciated by readers. It is a one-to-one, or rather a one-to-many, equation. Jeffrey Archer said about pirated versions of his books, since the author cannot do much about book piracy, he/she can find pleasure and satisfaction in the fact that his/her works are finding an even larger audience through the pirated publishing world.
Mr.Ashok Banker...while I fully understand your 'letting-your-hair-down' style, I do not understand the bitternes that comes through. You may disagree. The readers who subscribe to Outlook may be influenced negatively by this otherwise excellent piece of yours.
@ Pankaj Vaishnavi.
(Knock Knock ) "Who's there?"
(Answer) "It is I".
(Head Shake) Gawd, a grammar teacher ;-(
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT