There’s something that’s always been part of the Western publishing landscape, which is now seeping into India as well. It’s called elitism. You know, the attitude of a few that literary authors who write one book in five years are special and talented, and crime writers or those horrible romance writers who “churn out a book a year” don’t deserve to be read. The scratching of the head ensues when Dan Brown’s books sell millions and your friend, the avid reader, has never heard of Rohinton Mistry.
“Popular fiction” has become something to be mocked, looked down upon, and readers of it regarded with distaste. This is something that’s prevalent in music (“Celine Dion fans are ignorant and don’t know good music”) and in India, at least, everyone’s favorite punching bag is the author Chetan Bhagat.
Now before I go further, let me tell you about my reading choices. Well, everything. I grew up reading Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie, and the Nancy Drew series, moved on to those wondrous romance novels, graduated to chick lit and crime fiction, and now read pretty much everything under the sun, including Rohinton Mistry, Marian Keyes, Amy Tan, Harlan Coben, Haruki Murakami, Pankaj Mishra, Cormac McCarthy, Tom Robbins, Taslima Nasrin, Arundhati Roy, Jennifer Weiner, Sidney Sheldon, Amitav Ghosh, Nisha Minhas, Jhumpa Lahiri, and the back of my juice box. In fact, I’ll try any writer once.
I did pick up a Chetan Bhagat book a couple of years ago, didn’t really enjoy the story or the writing, and hence, didn’t buy any more. Purely personal taste, nothing against the author or his genre. I’m just not a young twenty-something Indian working in a multinational company and have already answered for myself the questions Bhagat’s characters are asking, so I don’t identify with their struggles. I also didn’t like the writing style.
But does that mean Bhagat’s books don’t deserve to be published? Does that mean all his readers are classless brainless idiots? No, of course not. One of his books just got made into a major movie, and he’s got hundreds of thousands of fans. Can we really say that hundreds of thousands of people don’t know what makes a good story or good book?
And what is a good book anyway? Isn’t it something that speaks to you, moves you, or just makes you laugh? Who am I to tell anyone that Arundhati Roy should move them or speak to them more than Chetan Bhagat? Who am I to say that reading a novel about sixteenth century China is a better way to spend an afternoon than reading a novel about a woman in LA who can’t find love?
This article in the Indian Express caught my attention as I was pondering these issues a couple of weeks ago. For those of you who’ve been around me for a while, you know how mad I get when someone uses multiple exclamation marks, so the fact that a published author would say, “Grammatical errors, spelling mistakes doesn’t (sic) matter that much. I am not writing a (sic) literature,” makes me want to poke a hot knife in my eye only so that the pain of that can erase the pain of this sentence, but this author is a bestselling writer and his book is in the eighth print run (whatever that means; what if they’re only printing 1,000 copies per run?). Will I read him? No, absolutely not. Will I look down upon people who do? No, never.
I understand that publishers and authors have a responsibility to their readers to give them a quality product, and by quality I do mean not completely abusing the English language, but I do have a problem with people who look down upon readers who choose to read something that the literati don’t approve of (yes, I’m looking at you, Maureen Dowd).
As readers, we should demand quality standards from our publishers, but don’t hate the author. Good on them if they were able to take that risk of sitting down and writing an entire book despite their lack of sophistication of language and then actually get it published and sold. I’m guessing these authors (the Indian ones) aren’t raking in the millions, so it’s important to understand that there is a market for their work and that they’re able to tap into it. But I just don’t understand the hatred against Bhagat on Twitter and other social media. So you don’t think he’s a good writer and shouldn’t be as popular as he is. Um, so?
As writers we work by and because of market forces every day. What the masses are reading and what they may or may not like is an important factor in what we’re able to sell. Can we really afford to look down on millions and say their taste doesn’t matter?
I, for one, can’t and don’t want to. I don’t like Bhagat’s books and won’t be reading them, but isn’t it a tremendous achievement that his books got people talking, and more than that, reading again?
As a writer, I’d like one day for my books to be able to do the same.
What you’ve noticed is the slow death of a culture of reading.
“I don’t like Bhagat’s books and won’t be reading them, but isn’t it a tremendous achievement that his books got people talking, and more than that, reading again?”
Isn’t this patronising people, and expecting little of them? In the 19th century, when there was a reading culture, it was expected that huge numbers of ordinary people could easily enjoy what we would today class as high literature? Actually, with practice, time and care, a lot of people could easily read “difficult” books and not find them difficult at all.
The left-wing football manager Brian Clough said socialism meant everyone could enjoy champagne. Shouldn’t rising living standards and increased education mean that everyone be encouraged to enjoy champagne rather than cheap grog?
“Isn’t this patronising people, and expecting little of them?”
I don’t know, is it? I certainly didn’t mean it that way. Could you explain, please?
As far as I know, there were hundreds of thousands of youngsters who didn’t read, at least in India, and Bhagat’s books have made reading cool again. People are picking up his books and those of others like him. That’s fact, and I’m not sure I understand what’s patronizing about that.
On the flipside, why should people be expected to read high class literature as opposed to say a quickie romance novel. I can’t speak for others, but I read for enjoyment and in order to learn something. If I enjoy chick lit, why is that in any way less acceptable than if I chose to read a “difficult” book?
And I actually happen to be one of those people who don’t like champagne. Should I be forced to drink it because of higher standards among the masses? Just because I can afford it doesn’t mean I like it. Just because I can understand a difficult book, doesn’t mean I necessarily enjoy it.
Some people like the cheap grog, some people like the champagne, most people like both. I think there’s a place for all kinds of books in the market and we should respect that.
Thought-provoking post; very well written. Off to bookmark it on delicious.
One thing about elitism in India though — I think it’s always been there, it’s just easier to notice now because of blogs and social networks.
So, your point essentially is – Books from authors like Rohinton Mistry are better than what the masses read. But we shouldn’t look down upon them and berate the authors catering to the masses.
I for one dont like to sugar coat. Chetan Bhagats books are not exactly the quintessence of great literature. And anyone who reads Chetan Bhagat can do much better by reading books that deal with timeless issues and dont pander to a particular demographic.
“So, your point essentially is – Books from authors like Rohinton Mistry are better than what the masses read.”
Absolutely not and that’s not what I said. What I deem as “better” doesn’t matter anyway. We should all be able to read and enjoy what we like without someone giving us grief for our perceived lack of taste. I love chick lit, but if you’ve read the op-ed I linked to by Maureen Dowd, apparently I should be embarrassed about it.
“But we shouldn’t look down upon them and berate the authors catering to the masses.”
No, we shouldn’t. That’s what makes us elitist.
“And anyone who reads Chetan Bhagat can do much better by reading books that deal with timeless issues and dont pander to a particular demographic.”
And you think you’re better qualified to make that decision than the reader himself/herself? Does that not smack of elitism to you? Forget Chetan Bhagat, aren’t you now pretty much telling a reader how he/she can “do much better” instead of understanding that it’s their choice and it might actually be an educated choice? That someone who reads Chetan Bhagat might actually (oh the horror) ALSO enjoy Rohinton Mistry?
@Sean: I think you are romanticizing the 19th century a bit, at least on the American side of things. In America, at that time, there was a proliferation of “dime novels” and “story papers” and many of the great and now-classic authors made their start and paid their bills by writing these pulp fiction novels. And frankly, before that, I think the reading culture purely was the elite community who had education. I apologize, because I don’t know what the situation was in India, and perhaps you are referring to that, but I do imagine it being much the same.
I have to admit I also have an elitist look towards Chetan Bhagat’s novels, but this blog post has got me thinking. However, I think my major issue wasn’t his plotlines (which were bad) but his writing style and tricks like changing the font three times in “One Night at the Call Center.” Yes, it has people reading more but I guess I feel it feeds into the continuation of people who write emails in SMS speak.
This is coming from someone who regularly reads YA Lit as an adult and still enjoys a good Chick Lit novel. It’s a problem that YA Lit is higher “a literature” than a popular adult novel. (Though, again, I am speaking from an American perspective, so the market in India for YA Lit is unknown to me.)
I guess my tastes tend toward what gets classified in some bookstores as “literature” (although I cringe when they do that). Many of the very popular authors–and their so-called page turners–bore me.
That said, I support everybody reading pretty much anything they can get their hands on. I’m always curious to know what people think about whatever they’re reading, even if it’s not something I’d choose to read myself–how somebody interacts with a text tells you something about how their mind works, where they’re at right now, etc.
Thanks Shruti. I’m glad this post is making you rethink your stance. I guess that’s the purpose of it. I’ve held the elitist view in the past and it’s only when I looked deeper that I could identify it for what it was. In India, especially, we often measure a person’s intelligence by the quality of his or her English and that’s such a narrow-minded view, though that’s a subject better left for another post.
Becky, I agree. I love to know what other people are reading and their views on the book, though I think I’m constantly looking for recommendations and to try new things. I sometimes think I’m making up for the ten years of my life when I had very few books.
Some writers concentrate on prose , some on plot. Now its the reader’s choice what he wants to pick. Why to prejudice people according to their choice? I always want to read something lighthearted in which you don’t end up opening dictionary for every word. For a person like me, who didn’t go beyond champaks and magazines , chetan bhagat novel comes as a boon . My reading habit became inceptive just because of his works !!
Good post !!!
Why is it patronising? I suppose that for a start chick-lit, lad-lit, Bhagat-lit, whatever you want to call it lit, simply isn’t very good. I mean, in the same way that burgers and candyfloss aren’t very good. Doesn’t mean they’re not enjoyable.
So yes, it’s good that people are reading who haven’t before, but if we pretend that everything is all of a level then they won’t progress to more challenging, interesting books. They won’t go beyond the page turner. I’m sure the stuff I was reading when I was 13 and not very literate wasn’t very good either, nothing wrong with that, but I kept at it and developed (a process which still has much further to go!). Tons of people could take reading further and this is, I think, a fundamentally good thing. If not an easy thing, which is why the cheap grog gets consumed far more.
why should people be expected to read high class literature as opposed to say a quickie romance novel – Why eat good food instead of McDonald’s? Why look at Rembrandts rather than adverts? It’s simply better quality stuff. Sometimes (not all the time) it’s good to consume the better stuff. That’s not a matter of acceptable/unacceptable but rather personal growth, challenging oneself and seeing what the best came up with.
As for the elitism, well what’s wrong with being elitist? Some stuff is better than others. Some people have read really widely, have good taste and well-honed sensibility – it’s worth listening to what they have to say. One is always free to disagree, after all.
Is there a place for both types of book in the market? Well, if all the money goes to the Twilights and Potters then that’s what agents and publishers will look for, to the detriment of looking for more literary efforts. Markets do tend towards a winner takes all stance, so there is very little left over stuff that doesn’t give the masses exactly what they want.
@Shruti, my comment re 19th century was based around Europe, home of the novel and also a period when the novel was busy being worked out.
Quite an interesting blog post on this sort of thing here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/7918801/Harry-Mount-v-Michael-Deacon-Whats-gone-wrong-with-the-modern-novel.html