Why banning porn is excessively asinine

My own views on pornography don't matter here.

Here, the thing we must focus on here is personal liberty, plus how we must approach topics like these.

Recently, the Government of India 'banned' 857 websites because they had 'pornographic content'. Why? The reason was some vague nonsense about 'their concerns over child pornography' and, as some accounts go, to 'also reduce sex crimes'.

How asinine. How incredibly stupid. How myopic and ill-informed.

It reveals the short-sightedness of the people who control policy-making at the highest levels of the administration.

Now, I'm not opposing the ban because I support porn. I don't- I think it demeans women and reduces them to sex objects and humiliates them. And porn which promotes bestiality and sexual violence against women is especially disturbing.

And of course, child porn is disgusting, vile and a punishable offence.

But the question here first is- will a forceful ban on porn work as a deterrent to sex offenders? Then the question comes- How do we approach a slippery slope like whether to ban or not to ban porn?

Yes, it is true that many, many sex criminals- rapists, molesters, child sex abusers and child rapists-, all over the world, have confessed to watching porn before they committed their heinous acts. And why not? Porn encourages a very misguided, perverted, view of both women and children, hypersexualizing them, reducing them to mere sex objects, to be raped, and then killed or left for dead.

But.

But, not all people who watch porn are sex offenders. Also, we need to ask ourselves- will banning porn bring down sex offences and child sex abuse? How? Why?

By forcefully banning porn in a society where sexuality is repressed,sex is a 'dirty thing' and not talked about openly, and men and women cannot easily mingle, fall in love and live together happily, DOES THIS GOVERNMENT REALIZE WHAT A COLOSSAL BLUNDER IT IS COMMITTING?

No, it doesn't. Because it seems to have thrown all sense out the window.

In a sexually repressed society, a lot of people find their only succor in porn, because of many reasons. Whether porn is wrong or right, it is what keeps them sated. Take that away and one day, they will turn on real women and rape them brutally.

Let's not talk about pedophiles here-they need a shrink anyway. And child porn involves child sex abuse- so it's a crime. Adult porn, at least to some extent, is filmed by consent.

We must be careful to see the gap porn is filling. Porn is illegal, porn is taboo, and yet, people across the world watch it- in secret. No one wants to announce they watch porn- it has been known to destroy relationships too. And yet, the porn industry thrives. Why? There is some need it is exploiting by filling it, some gap it is addressing.

So how do you find that gap and find another way to fill it?

By having a scientific, open discussion. On sex, sexuality, psychosexual aberrations and sexual violence, and the psychosocial implications of pornography. Because all these things are related to pornography- very deeply related. We need to involve men, women, even parents, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, criminologists and behavioral scientists. Even writers, academicians and other such intellectuals should be involved. We need to have an open, healthy debate on these topics. We need to establish the link between porn as a cause of sexual violence and child abuse too perhaps- develop a scientific correlation, present empirical evidence. THAT is the right way to do it. Informed, scientific, ratiocinated debate, and an educated consensus reached.

And then, the consensus to ban porn, or at least, not watch it, must come from the public themselves. Because the gap that had to be addressed has now found a way to be alternatively addressed. No need to watch porn any longer, perhaps.

But what does this government do?

Look at the hypocrisy. The government will shy away from sex education, saying it's against 'Indian culture' and that 'adolescents will want to have sex if we teach them about it'. What bullshit! Adolescents and young adults indulge in risky sexual behavior because of the LACK of knowledge. They are not so dumb that a sex education class will spur them to try sex in real life. Instead, it will encourage them to be open and frankly talk about sex, and not have to turn to porn to fulfill their curiosity and assuage their libidos.  Their curiosity is being fed not with trashy porn sites and Fifty Shades of Grey, but with proper, interesting knowledge about sex, sexuality, sexual behavior and how to live with one's partner.

But they won't listen.

They won't make the streets safer for women and kids. They won't maintain a registry of sex offenders and child abusers, and keep a watch on them. They won't build rape crisis centers for rape survivors, they won't sensitize and train doctors to deal with, and provide care to survivors of sex crimes. They won't sensitize society towards gender violence and respecting and supporting women, acknowledging their rights and freedom, and kicking patriarchy and misogyny in the butt. They won't sensitize the police to register FIRs and be sensitive and helpful to sex crime survivors and abused children. NO. Because this takes REAL effort. Besides, how will they sensitize the public when MPs and MLAs are famous for making sexist comments, without shame, and they won't even apologize? MPs watch porn during running Parliament sessions. How the hell can they tell the lay citizen to not watch it?

So what do you do when you don't want to put any real effort to change the ground situation?

You ban porn. As if that is the sole cause of sexual violence against women and children, and banning porn will make the rape and child abuse rates go to ZERO.

This is one of those half-baked, ill-informed, asinine, irrational methods one adopts when they don't want to take any real action, or make a real, concerted effort to being about positive change.

This ban, and then revoking it two days later, holding the ISPs responsible for 'filtering child porn' show how much judgmentally impaired this government is. It does not make its decisions based on scientific data and educated opinions, but instead, on whimsy and its changing moods. Is this a responsible government? Is this the 'Acche Din' bullshit that was being bandied about in May 2014? Can this government be trusted to make proper decisions to bring about progress and development?

NO.

And thus, we sit and watch as this government makes an ever greater fool of itself in the future.

Why I write- A Short Essay

Because Chuck’s finally asked a very basic question- why we writers write- let me attempt to summarize the answer in a few bullet points. I write because:

Ø  I believe I was born as a human sponge- destined to absorb, in heart and in mind, the essence and the truth behind everything that was going on around me. Love, loss, grief, evil, longing, joy, sex, art, books, births, deaths…you name it. To drink eat, and lap up the universe around me, so that the gist of everything resides in me, a microcosm, to be more aware of my surroundings than others.

Ø  Since I could read the alphabet, my mother put a book in my hand. Not just picture books, but children’s story books.

Ø  I’ve faced things in life. Rejection, antagonism and lack of understanding from near ones, ridicule for being different, for being overweight and awkward, for being real and not a faked version of someone else, for not caring what people think of me. I’ve been through many dark phases- so writing helps me come to terms with that darkness and realize that I’ve found the light, finally.

Ø  I think the genres I write also define me as a writer. I write crime, psychological suspense, horror and erotica. All four genres are inter-related and help me explore the darkness, the negativity that underlies everything, and how people come out of it. How everything is covered in shades of grey, and how we must have the insight to recognize that not everything’s black and white.

Ø  Writing helps me bust the stress of everyday life. I write every day, and I write a fairly lot. I work on two to three manuscripts at the same time. So my mind is always busy plotting murders, intrigues and who will fall in love with whom, who will take whom to bed, who will lecture whom on what, who will cuss whom and who will kill whom etc…you get the drift. Writing a lot helps me put things in perspective, and helps me take failure and success in stride.

Ø  Writing has helped me improve my memory, logistic and analytical skills. Since it helps me get everything into perspective, writing has made me more rational, more pragmatic and more intelligent. It has helped me greatly as a student and researcher. I never take anything at face value, but try to look deeper to find out the truth. As a writer, I observe people and events around me, and it helps me understand the world better. Therefore, I believe that writers don’t look at the world- they see through it.

Ø  Writing helps me find my voice, what I stand for, what I believe in, what I despise. That’s why no two writers are the same- a good writer writes in their own distinctive voice and creates beautiful prose.

Ø  Writing makes me feel better about myself. I’m not wasting time over stupid social gatherings (except book launches, write-ins and chat with close friends- those are not a waste of time), dumbass parties, or bitching about people to other people, wallowing in frivolity and mediocrity, or worse. I’m utilizing my time to create something hopefully of good redeeming value, something which will connect with other people on a profound, personal level, and perhaps make them happy, and let them know that they’re not alone. When I sum up what I’ve done in my life, creating something valuable and beautiful will give me an indication of a life well lived, and well spent.

Ø  Writing gives me a great excuse to eat chocolate, savor good food and drink lots of coffee ( I call it The Writers’ Nutrition).

Ø  If I don’t write, I will not be able to vomit the thousands of worlds, experiences, people, and other things residing in my neurons. My experiences, the things I observe and learn, the stories I absorb from books and which morph into other books in my fertile imagination, the untold feelings- all of these are constantly knocking on the inside of my head. Write us down now, they always say. If I don’t write, the knocking grows insistent till I’m forced to open the laptop and type down my thoughts.

Ø  Writing has helped me navigate through the dark, the negative and turn myself into a positive, confident, outspoken, self-assured person, and made me unafraid of my naysayers and detractors.

Ø  Writing is part of my identity. It gives meaning to my life, and helps me relate to other writers- sentient beings who live for almost the same ideals as I do.

Ø  PROUD TO BE A WRITER.

Discussion- The antagonist as the protagonist in a novel

I have been grappling with the concept, as of late, of the Antagonist of a story being the Protagonist.
Usually, the protagonist is the good guy/gal- their thoughts and actions steeped in shades of grey but ultimately they prove their mettle.
But I'm developing the concept for these three erotic suspense novellas which I'll write as an armada.
All three protagonists are women. No, it's not a feminist things- it's just centered around three woman characters, all different and disparate from each other.
Now, my characters are rebellious, independent minded, the my-life-my-rules kind.
And as I still remember a line from Chuck Wendig's brilliant article on strong female characters in books- the character choices must push on the plot mostly- the plot must not push on the character's actions all that much.
I have tried to make the situations such that my character's actions push on the plot- motivation, action, consequence.
Thing is, these actions are not always good. In this case, some of them are outright reprehensible. But the thing is, these women make choices- even if bad ones- and that's how the story moves forward. But the nature of these actions make my characters the antagonists too, and not very likeable.
No one likes people who cheat on their spouses, bitch about others, cuss excessively or, in extreme cases, kill. But that's how I'm shaping the protagonist-cum-antagonist in these novellas. 
My aim is not to glorify these things- in fact, I believe some of the things done by my MCs are condemn-able, but it's for the audience to decide, not for me. I'll not impose my view-points on them.
My question, can these characters be considered 'strong'? Strong as in not the kind who beats up goons, but the kind who makes their own choices- no matter how bad those choices are.
If strong protagonists are the cornerstone of compelling stories, so are strong antagonist-protagonists for some stories, right?

Book Review- The Scion of Ikshvaku by Amish

Blurb: Ram Rajya. The Perfect Land. But perfection has a price. He paid that price.

3400 BCE.INDIA

Ayodhya is weakened by divisions. A terrible war has taken its toll. The damage runs deep. The demon King of Lanka, Raavan, does not impose his rule on the defeated. He, instead, imposes his trade. Money is sucked out of the empire. The Sapt Sindhu people descend into poverty, despondency and corruption. They cry for a leader to lead them out of the morass. Little do they appreciate that the leader is among them. One whom they know. A tortured and ostracised prince. A prince they tried to break. A prince called Ram.

He loves his country, even when his countrymen torment him. He stands alone for the law. His band of brothers, his Sita, and he, against the darkness of chaos.

Will Ram rise above the taint that others heap on him? Will his love for Sita sustain him through his struggle? Will he defeat the demon Lord Raavan who destroyed his childhood? Will he fulfill the destiny of the Vishnu?

Begin an epic journey with Amishs latest- the Ram Chandra Series.

Sometimes someone like me must read someone like Amish. And sometimes, I must risk giving a review on his books because I consider myself a serious purveyor of literature, and a keen observer of publishing trends. Of course, I will be very unpopular among a few of my writer friends who wouldn't like my approach very much. But I must speak out, air my opinion, because that's what I'm like.

I'll be brief in this review, because I have nothing much to say here. Sadly, Amish's latest book doesn't deserve a lengthy review at all. I have written lengthy reviews in the past for books which were examples of serious literature, or at least worth a review. But this book is...the reason I'm writing a review is NOT just a comment on the book, but a commentary on the quality of 'popular literature' in India as well.

So like the Shiva trilogy, Amish has once again done a retelling of ancient Hindu epics- through the Ram Chandra series. He has attempted a new spin on the Ramayana- albeit with a contemporary feel to it. Raavan the demon king's juggernaut looks suspiciously akin to a modern day helicopter, for example. Ram rolls his eyes at his half-brother Bharat, who, before he falls in love, is sort of a Casanova, liaising with many girls- Ram is simply stunned at the number of girlfriends around Bharat, a babe magnet. The four brothers are shown to be loving and caring of each other; Manthara is a cunning but savvy businesswoman, Kaikeyi is a through-and-through bitch who wants to keeps both her husband and her son under her thumb; Kaushalya and Sumitra are demure queens who constantly ingratiate themselves to the misogynist, pig-headed, unreasonable, and borderline psychotic Emperor Dashrath. Ram was born on the same day as his father was defeated by Raavan, so Dashrath hates him for years with a vengeance and wrongly accuses him of being the reason the Sapt Sindhu lost to Lanka. Political intrigue is attempted through the wily, scheming Guru Vishwamitra and the rational, kind Vashishta, who backs Ram and Lakshman, and who trust him too.

Amish tries to inject a mythological fantasy with contemporary issues plaguing society, and he does this well- to an extent. He does it MUCH better than Chetan Bhagat, who CLAIMS to handle such issues in his 'books' but SHORTCHANGES the reader every time. Amish doesn't- he does touch upon plenty of relevant issues.

There is a gang-rape (aka Delhi 2012), and a brutal retaliation, there is debate on the Juvenile Justice Law- which was recently amended so that minors can be tried as adults in crimes like rape, and murder. There is a raging debate on 'masculine' and 'feminine' societies. Masculine as in patriarchal, feminine as in matriarchal? Most of the debate went over my head- and there arises my first problem with the book. Too much debate! The characters, at times look more like competing professional debate teams than characters in a mytho-fantasy. I actually rolled my eyes on having to read a debate in every chapter- I don't want a debate when I'm not in the mood, Amish. There is a time and place for that. You can, instead, write blog posts where your characters talk, or hold online webinars. If your characters must air their opinions, let it be through scenes, or incidents where the characters act upon this belief. Don't impose debates on me when I expect you to tell a story. It sounds preachy. You're telling a story, not doling out advice.

The other problems like cleanliness, city-planning, law and order, how to follow rules, blah blah blah have also been touched upon (PHEW!).

Ram's emphasis on following the law is an issue that pervades throughout the book- and the author has used this quality of his as a motivation to tell a different story than the one in popular Hindutva discourse, which I read as a kid.

Somehow, everyone in the book seems either tall and muscular or dark and muscular or fair and muscular. Do people in mytho-fantasies look all the same- are their looks all in the same damn three categories? People in real life don't look so same, BTW. Please try and imagine different-looking characters in your next, Amish. 

That brings me to my biggest grouse with the book- the plot. Amish has seriously lost the plot in this book of his, sadly. I thought the Shiva trilogy was fairly good, because Amish told a good story, and did his research well. The Shiva series had the plot as its redeeming USP. Something which this new novel doesn't have. If I explain why, I'll seriously give away the plot, so I'll just say that certain events, which are kind of important according to me, have been glossed over. It's like the author was hurrying through this book so he can, perhaps, provide a steady plot in the next one.

Didn't work for me. Although my knowledge of Hindu mythology is sketchy, at best, I still have a good idea about what makes a story good, what plot points deserve a big mention and what don't. What points should be stretched in detail to contribute to the plot, and what should be left alone. Retelling of a popular epic does not mean that you can just trail-blaze through the events like you're doing a running commentary. For eg- in the Shiva books, the one thing I like the most is the way Shiva and Parvati's relationship has been depicted. Here, although Ram does fall in love, at first sight, with Sita in a nicely written scene ( one of the very few that dot the book), there is no passion, no love intrigues, no silly games, no emotionally loaded lovemaking. I don't want sex scenes, no. I just want to feel their love and rejoice in it, I want to empathize with Ram when Raavan kidnaps his wife, I want to feel the depth of his anger, his indignation, his rage when his brave and beloved wife is targeted in this manner.

That brings me to reiterate the well-known fact that Amish is, at best, an average writer. What makes his book tick is the plot, and the good research. His prose is dull, uninspiring, and horrifyingly pedestrian. Now, Westland is a prestigious publisher- one which would have made lots of money from the sales of Amish's books. Why couldn't they hire a better editor? I found the SAME GLARING FLAW in the Shiva books- pedestrian, languid prose and horrible editing. Can't they find someone who can even marginally make Amish's writing better? But then, if the writer is average, how much can the editor do?

People who are first time readers will think Amish's writing is top-quality. But readers like me, who have been reading for more than two decades, and have read some of the stalwarts like Agatha Christie, Sir Conan Doyle, Dostoevsky and all Russian authors, Enid Blyton, VS Naipaul, Toni Morrison, Gabriel Marquez, Steinbeck etc. etc. etc. will make out the flaws in Amish's writing easily.

Just knowing English and English words and grammar and punctuation doesn't make you a good author. Knowing how to weave these words into beautiful prose is.

Since I'm reviewing this book, let me give you some examples from India itself. Recently I read Anees Salim and Cyrus Mistry, and then I read Amish. And I realized something. Salim, Mistry and his brother Rohinton, who is also a great author, Jeet Thayil, Vikram Seth etc. etc- these are quality authors. I, and people who read lit-fic, relate to them better. And yes, literary fiction is not the only serious literature, but it is serious. But these authors never get their due, never get the publicity, the merit and the public adulation they deserve for respecting the venerated craft of writing.

Film director Shekhar Kapur commented that Amish is 'India's first literary pop-star'.

Problem is, Mr. Kapur, we discerning readers don't need pop-stars in literature. We need serious writers who practice diligently to hone their skills to the zenith, and give us excellent stories which are also well-written, which appeal to readers like me. We readers need more Cyrus Mistry-s, more Naipauls, more Salims. Who write something serious and lasting. Time-pass writers who write time-pass stories for the masses are fine...but only to a certain limit.

Literature, if besieged with pop-stars, will wither and die. Good literature, I mean. And if one wants to be a punk, the literary equivalent of a leather-jacket wearing, funky-song singing pop-star, will receive the treatment most modern pop-stars receive. No one will take them seriously. They will be a trend, a temporary craze, a fleeting madness that will disappear when someone else comes along.

Writers improve as they write more books- Amish does the exact opposite. The quality of his prose has not improved...and his novel has gone from okay to bad- this is the opposite of improvement.

This 'pop-star' analogy seriously worries me about the quality of upcoming literature in society. Hopefully Amish will improve a bit in his next book- this one's not really worth all the hype, hoopla and star-studded launches it's getting ( public's love for Amish notwithstanding).

But I don't know if I will read Amish's next. This one has put me off in a big way.

But if you still like literary pop-stars, please go ahead and read this book. But except for a few good paragraphs and scenes, it is completely insipid and lack-luster.

Flipkart

Why We Writers Must Never Give Up- A Discussion

This article is for you, Debashish, and for you, Kuheli.

I, like you, am an aspiring author, still learning the ropes of a craft as challenging and as interesting as Writing, and taking my baby steps in the tough, cruel, schizophrenic world of publishing. I am no one to tell you 'how to be a good writer' or anything. In fact, anyone who tries to tell you the 'rules', even if they're a bestselling author- is a BIG fraud and presumptuous fool.

No one can tell you how to be a good writer. You know what your writer personality is- your instincts will tell you how to be a good writer.

But as someone in the same boat with you, I will share my experience with you, and perhaps discuss how not to lose hope. This article is not an attempt to dole out advice-I am no one to deliver sermons- but just a discussion.

Writing is a self-perpetuating craft. What I mean is, a writer, a real writer, keeps producing stuff- this is one thing I know about a true writer. They don't stop at one story, or one novel. They keep writing, they keep creating. Words beget words. Then comes a story. Story begets a story, and then come novels, novellas, short story collections, poetry collections and whatnot. Then come some of our masterpieces- works which carry a part of us within them, to the world. We create because we imagine worlds in our brain- and our imagination comes from the many books, newspapers and magazines we read, from movies and serials we watch, and most importantly, from the people we meet and the situations and happenings we observe around us.

Now both of you are working health professionals. So am I. The hospital has plenty of stories waiting to be absorbed and written in its corridors, in the people which inhabit it, and those that run it. Just an example. You guys also read voraciously- Debashish, like me, is an ardent admirer of literary fiction. Kuheli, I'm not really aware of your reading choices. But my point is, we three live and work and interact in environments highly fertile for breeding stories and conducive to writers, we're literate, motivated and well aware of the environment around us.

Believe me, there're stories waiting inside of you. Stories waiting, crying to be written. Stories which have formed from the experience and instinctive knowledge of years we have spent in our lives- the people, the feelings, the happenings, the ups and downs, the happiness, the sorrows, the love and the resentment, friends, relationships, loved ones, patients, colleagues, operations, exams etc.etc.etc. It's time these stories start knocking on the inside of your skull, badgering you to vomit them out, on paper or on your laptop.

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Your story, waiting to be written.

From your own statements, I've been able to gather the gist of your problem- you're blocked, stuck. You have been working on your stories for months, then suddenly reached an impasse.

You seem to have lost all hope. You doubt if your work is readable enough. You doubt if you're ever write a story you're actually satisfied with. You wonder about all the hours you put in, if what you produced is worthy enough, whether your stories will ever see the light of day.

No problem.

Self-doubt is a part of EVERY writer's process/journey to literary success. Even the best of writers have been faced with and tackled self-doubt at some point. The good thing about a little self-doubt is, it can keep us grounded and prevent us from feeling too sure of ourselves, thereby helping us produce something good. The problem with self-doubt: extremes of it can lead to mental paralysis- it can leave us drained and depressed, it can make us think our stories are shit and we can never write again, that we're hopeless and we were deluding ourselves all this time.

NO. WRONG. SO WRONG.

Think about why you became writers in the first place. Why you became part of Wrimo India and NaNo, and why you interact with other writers. It is because, somewhere, inside that thinking, working brain of yours, you KNOW that you're a writer. That writing is an indispensable part of your life. That you have stories to tell the world. That writing is not an easy task. That it will take you months, or maybe several years, of writing daily, reading like crazy and getting your work critiqued, then edit and revise and polish and submit etc. etc. to become confident enough. That you will be assailed by self-doubt at times.

What is the solution?

In my view, I would say this: Writing begets Writing.

If you stay stuck on one manuscript, you may feel bored, or unmotivated, or depressed, or all three. Like I said at the beginning of this article, keep writing, keep producing stories. Read more books in your genre, and watch more serials in your area of authorly interest. A lot of your material comes from the magazines and newspapers you read, the news you watch, the colleagues you work with, the patients you interact with and treat, the conversations you have with your friends and family. Each of them contributes a little to building that world of knowledge inside you, the world which then spouts reams and reams of stories.

Keep reading. Keep writing. Write anything- essays, blogs, poems, FB posts. Scribble your random ideas in a diary or your journal. Your minds will, of its own accord, start connecting the dots and making up stories. Write an outline of a plot if you have one. Not necessary to bother with lengthy outlines and extensive plotting even BEFORE you begin plotting your story, like Sonia says.
As a pantser, I think, where's the fun in that?

Your story will work itself out in your head while you cook, see patients, talk to friends or family members or do whatever else you do in your daily routine. Write your story as it comes to you. Write everyday. And don't be stuck on the same story- keep one or two other ideas alongside to work on when you feel blocked on your pet project. Don't stop on one project. After you finish one book, start another. While you polish the first one, work on the second. By the time you will revise, edit, get critiques and then revise and re-edit till you're satisfied, you will have reached the crux of your second book. By then, your imaginations will have fired enough to get you started on your third novel by the time you wrap up your second one.

Don't stay stuck on novels. Work on short stories too- keep abreast of writing competitions for short stories and work on them too. Follow authors like Chuck Wending who do a flash fiction competition every week, on their blog. Think of contributing to literary magazines in your area of interest.

Writing short stories is the BEST practice to hone your craft and make you skilled at writing bigger stories. They are like lubricants, which will smooth out your writing process, such that you become better at writing long ones. This is my personal experience.

Write so much and produce like crazy, so that you don't have time to mope on a single story on which you're stuck- and to keep your writing machinery- the imagination- in great shape, read, read book after book after book to keep your neural network alive and working full time.

So, in a gist, here. what I do to overcome self-doubt, and maybe you can too:

I READ LIKE A CRAZY PERSON- NOWADAYS I DO BOOK AFTER BOOK AFTER BOOK.

I OBSERVE STUFF GOING ON AROUND ME AND THEY TURN TO STORIES.

WRITE DAILY- TARGET SETTING IS NOT IMPORTANT. WRITE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN MANAGE.

WRITE A LOT.BE PROLIFIC. KEEP PRODUCING WORK AFTER WORK TO KEEP YOURSELF BUSY, EDITING CAN HAPPEN LATER. MAY PUBLISHED WRITERS HAVE SAID THAT THEY STILL HAVEN'T PUBLISHED THEIR FIRST NOVEL; OR THAT THEIR FIRST NOVEL GOT PUBLISHED MUCH LATER! THEIR THIRD AND FOURTH NOVELS GOT PUBLISHED FIRST!

POLISH YOUR WORK WITH CRITIQUES AND REVISION AND EDITING, AND KEEP SUBMITTING. SOME WILL GET ACCEPTED, SOME REJECTED, AND THAT'S THE WAY YOUR JOURNEY STARTS.

DON'T LOSE HOPE.

I will wrap up my essay here. I'd meant to write a blog post but it inadvertently became an essay. Hopefully this will enable a discussion on our forum and help us grow as writers.

PS: If your CSF isn't already leaking from your skulls after my lengthy essay, you can refer to these articles by an author friend of mine, and one by author Chuck Wendig. They may also help.

1. http://www.kseniaanske.com/search?q=self-doubt

2.http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/09/27/writers-must-kill-self-doubt-before-self-doubt-kills-them/


Happy writing, and take care! :-)

Sleepless in Serpentabad #1: What the hell is this Serpentabad?

Serpentabad was a strange, strange name, for a place whose queerness defied imagination, in a part of a country in the South Asian peninsula which didn't attract a lot of attraction.

Until, of course, Serpentabad happened.

How did Serpentabad happen?

That is a story for another time- we'll come to that.

The peaceful folks of Naga Pradesh weren't happy that this mystical place, found hidden, perhaps for centuries, deep in the bowels of the Naga jungles, be named Serpentabad.

They found it weird and embarrassing, as they would tell the media in countless interviews later on.

But the Naga people might as well as had been talking to the wall.

The rest of the country had better things to do than listen to them.

They were aliens with almond-shaped eyes and flat noses, after all.

But wait.

Wasn't this about Serpentabad, and what the hell it is?

Serpentabad is more of a fantasy-land than a real place- something you're more likely to find in a fable or a mythological folk tale.

A land where there are human beings. With everything same anatomically as other human beings, except that their skin is scaly and rainbow colored. They wear snake-skins of various hues, eat gourmet snake meat food ( they have special chefs for that), follow weird sexual practices and live in houses built in the shape of a snake's wide open mouth. With foot-long, real life fangs sticking out of the entrance. They called themselves the Serpentines and grow a modified version of Rauwolfia serpentina

A land ruled by the 12-headed Serpeconda, the Emperor Lord of serpents, who lives in the Constrictor Sea. Named so because it is the official residence of the boa constrictors, the family who rules the snake kingdom.

This place was pretty much shrouded in obscurity till discovered by a mad entomologist from France. Who, by the way, went actually mad with exhilaration after discovering Serpentabad- no one knows why.

But the over-excited Jacques Risseau, now locked up in a mental institute in Paris, where he talks about his discovery from morning till night, didn't go fully mad before he had revealed Serpentabad to the world. Much to the chagrin of Serpeconda, as he would later tell awed news reporters.

How Jacques found this place, we will come to later.

But now that Serpentabad is on international radars, a team from India's biggest news channel is set to visit Serpentabad. Varnab Boast-wami the Crazy Anchor and his team, to be precise.

We will start on their story next week.

PS: Serpeconda is rolling his eyes, and sighing warily, at Boast-wami's name. He has a long and wary fight ahead of him with the Crazy Anchor.

Review- Maya's New Husband by Neil D'Silva

Blurb: In the suburbs of Mumbai, the atmosphere is grim. There is an evil shadow lurking around staling and snatching able -bodied people. The hapless victims are never found again,their bodily traces lost forever in the unknown reaches of the city. In the midst of this is Maya Bhargava, a schoolteacher with a troublesome past. Her career looks promising though.She is learning to pick the broken pieces of her heart and move on. While still trying to cope, love comes her way. It comes most unexpectedly, from a man named Bhaskar Sadachari, who is despised and even feared for his weird ways. The sensible Maya has her head in the right place,but it is her heart that refuses to pay. She chooses the new husband. And the horror begins to unfold.




Horror in the traditional Indian context- in both movies and fiction- has been about bhooth, pishaach, dayan, chuddell, athmaas and the like- supernatural creatures that haunt peepul tress and old havelis and palaces, and terrorize men and women who dare to encounter them. Unfortunately, this horror theme has been so done to death by writers and filmmakers that it has lost its zing. Let's talk about horror novels. The same old, lame old story is thrown at the wary reader- the old, decrepit haveli or palace, the same Rajasthani locales, the same myths about ghosts wanting vengeance haunting the Earth decades after dying. Lame. Boring.
Therefore, kudos to Neil for going down the path never taken- for writing a horror story based on cannibals and crime. For bringing out the horror that resides within the human brain- aka Thomas Harris in his excellent Hannibal series, and Arnab Ray in his novel, The Mine.
I liked the concept about exploring aghori babas- ascetics who reside in Hindu cemeteries, cover themselves in nothing but ashes of the dead, worship Lord Shiva and eat the flesh of the dead.
I remember Aghoris from a documentary I saw on a news channel years ago- where I came to know that cannibalism, ordinarily punishable by law and stomach-churning for a normal person, is practiced as a ritual by some ascetics, and it has religious sanction.
The pivot of Aghoris on which the novel is based makes it all the more intriguing, because of all the mystery these people have built around them- their uniqueness, their weird practices, their staying with chutzpah in places we consider haunted.
The characters are interesting too. Especially Maya Bhargava- the female MC. My feminist self liked her independent, headstrong nature- she's professionally successful, bold enough to teach at an all boys' school despite the stares she gets from the teenage, hormone-struck lads there, and stubborn enough to live life on her terms.
I also liked the character of the sister Namrata- also an independent lady living life on her terms.
I didn't, however, like the character of their mother, Anuradha. I understand that the author meant to portray her as a traditional Marathi woman struggling to come to terms with an increasingly modernizing society around her, but sometimes the descriptions are excessive. Here, my feminist self thinks it's horribly regressive for a woman to think the only thing that gives her value is her ability to cook sweets on Hindu festivals. A woman who measures her worth on such ridiculous benchmarks is a female misogynist. Anuradha is way too regressive and dogmatic for a woman who has two headstrong adult daughters who march to the sound of their own drums.
Also, it is  a little surprising that all three women living in the same house are excellent cooks. Why do ALL women HAVE to be great cooks all the time? That is quite an offensive stereotype. Coming from someone who is an average cook at best- and whose mother is an excellent cook.
I would also add that I had a problem with what Maya did after marriage. When she found herself in dire straits, why didn't she lift a finger to change her circumstances? A strong, intelligent woman like her could have easily managed. Why didn't she stand up to her husband's temper problem? Why didn't she force him to move out of the dumpster they lived in? Why was a tough lady like her so scared of her husband- whom she married out of love? Why did she stay in a marriage where she and Bhaskar had no communication except violent sex at night? Why didn't she bother to find out where he went during the day? How could she stay put in a cold turkey of a marriage? I can understand the stuff about compromising for love and all that, but there's a limit. And how did a working woman like her settle SO quickly into domesticity? How can an intelligent, lively woman not care where her husband goes and what he does? If she was so scared of asking, then why'd she bother to remain his wife anyway?
I also liked the character of Bhaskar Sadachari. I liked the way his past and present has been stitched together to explain his behavior- if I say I'll be essentially giving away the plot.
But wait.
That gets me to my main grouse with the story. Despite having an excellent theme and base, MNH reveals the suspense too early. Now here comes my 'experience'- whatever little it is- with crime novels. Because this novel also has crime- murders, cannibalism- as essential themes.
As a crime writer myself, I know that psychopaths, like the one in this book, are charming people on the outside. They dress, live and present themselves in a way that makes the world believe they're good people. Look at Hannibal Lecter- genius psychiatrist, great culinarian, gifted with excellent social skills and a charming personality. Who could have thought he could turn out to be a cannibal?
But in MNH, that there is something wrong with Bhaskar is revealed too early. It's obvious from his looks, from his behavior, from his dressing sense. Everyone- Maya's mom and sister, her friend Padma and other school students find Bhaskar off-putting. That took the 'shock' element out of the novel- stole its punchline and rendered it less potent than it could have been.
In a crime-horror, you never reveal anything wrong with the character who is the antagonist till the last or second-last scene. You detail the crimes- which Neil has done very well, there are some genuinely puke-inducing scenes- but you keep the identity of the murderer secret.
You reveal it at the last- when the climax comes. Here, if Maya had found out about her husband later- through her own investigations or a tip-off from, say, her friend Padma, who accidentally found out Bhaskar's reality, then the novel could have gone BAM on me. Like, WOWIE! The adorable gentleman, the loving husband Bhaskar is not what he seems?
The writing is good, the prose is eloquent but a bit too verbose in places. Sometimes, too much description and similes spoil the fun of reading.
In some places there are grammatical and typo errors. Some of these grammar errors have been caused by neologisms creeping in- like at one point the author writes 'it was the neighboring woman'. Now I think adding the 'ing' is redundant- it is a result of what some call 'Indian-ness'. Actually we just say : It was the neighbor. Gender can be specified later, or in a different version of the same sentence.
Other redundancies are the love scenes between Hemant and Namrata. There is no other background on these two except that both are horny lovers. It would have sufficed if the author had shown Hemant as Namrata's boyfriend in the beginning, through a meeting between him and her family, and then, at last, they both could have come to Maya's rescue.The sub-plot describing the sex was not necessary. The reason for Namrata not taking Maya's calls- she was busy with her boyfriend- could have just been hinted at.
That brings me to my last nitpick. Initially, I praised MNH for choosing Aghori Babas and their cannibalistic practices as the basis for the plot.
The thing about novels on cannibals and other psychopaths, like the Hannibal series, is that they describe a deviation, a warped mentality, an illness that is all too real.
Ghosts are scary, true, but it's not clear whether they actually exist or not.
Much more chilling than evil spirits and demons are the real life serial killers, rapists and other such samples. Because they detail human depravity, something that comes from the darkness within us.
Their depraved actions can chill you to the bone and make your blood run cold in your veins- that's the effect of the aftermath of psychopathy and criminal behavior.
That's why, in a novel about cannibalistic psychopaths, you don't bring in an Aghori who can predict the future and trace his dead comrade through his 'senses' alone. It sounds like some plot out of a Ramsay movie- and it is ridiculous. It's out of place in a gritty novel showing human depravity.
Yeah, you could show such people as delusional fools masquerading as ascetics lost in grandiose delusions of their greatness.
But you don't bring in supernatural stuff in a novel on criminal psychopaths. Never.
Unless it suits the story. Or you are a genius like Stephen King, who can write a horror combining hardened criminals and evil ghosts with fantastic smartness and skill. Read his Bag of Bones, Dolores Clairborne, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Black House.
But very few authors can write horror like King. So when you're writing a gritty thriller about a cannibal, stick to portraying characters of the cannibal- something the author has done very well. Full marks on that.

I wish the author, whom I know personally as a writer, all the best for his next book. He is genuinely talented, and I have critiqued him a bit harshly because I expect the best from him- he is among the best.

But please do read the book if you want a breather from boring, lacklustre Bollywood matinee movies like Alone, Creature and Ek Paheli Leela. And boring horror novels too.

You can order the book here: http://www.amazon.in/Mayas-New-Husband-Neil-DSilva/dp/9385137077/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1434727759&sr=1-1

Happy Reading!!