Hi Victor, It is always a pleasure and stimulus to dialogue with an individual who remains on topic. I hope others can emulate your example. I will do so by specifically responding to the points you raise with my reply under each of your paragraphs. Kind Regards, GL
Victor Rangel-Ribeiro (VRR) Why do you expect me to explain the disparity between the reviews? Must two reviewers think alike? My novel and my short story collection have been praised by some reviewers, and panned by some others. Sometimes, the same qualities that pleased one reviewer displeased another. An author has to take this sort of thing in stride. GL: So your original comment about the reviewer being "fair" does not hold water. "Fairness" is like "beauty". It is the eye of the beholder. Semantics aside, even in today's world, one will not be as dismissive of someone's work as is Mehta. One does not have to be a linguist to see this in his review. If this was a "white" and "black" issue in the USA, one would call Mehta's remarks as racist. VRR: On your second point, Khushwant Singh is renowned in his particular fields; is he renowned in the field that is pertinent to an appraisal of this book, to the same extent that your bete-noir, Mehta, is? GL: Singh is more qualified that you seem to give him credit. In addition to being a writer and recognized pundit on Indian social-political scene, he is a member of the minority community, that has been the victim of holy warriors. That's more of an education than a member of the majority community who has never been a victim of fanaticism will ever get. Mehta's academic world is an ivory tower whose "think tank" approach may ignore many of the perils people on the streets experience. VRR: You have invited various individuals to review the book as well. Some have accepted. Were I to write about the book, no sensible person would consider it a review, because I do not have sufficient expertise to judge a book of this character; anything I wrote would be merely an expression of personal opinion, and not to be judged in the same league as Dr. Mehta's! GL: I would like all Goans and Indians (sp. writers, social thinkers and college students) to STUDY Holy Warriors as Singh advises in his review. Edna Fernandes' book is written for individuals like you and me. It is not written for the experts. And that is the fundamental mistakes that many "experts" (including on cyber Goa) make when they review a book / article. If you give Mehta credit for expertise in this field, you should for the same reason, severely critique him for India's (government) miserable failure on this front in the recent past. VRR: Anyone who writes a professional book deserves a professional review. I believe our author got one. GL: I would welcome a review that was professionally done. Anyone reading Mehta's review will see it as dismissive and one-sided. I would be disappointed if a review completely tilted the other way. In both cases, I would question the motivation of the reviewer and the site of its publication, as I did with Mehta. As I have said, Mehta can write his own book to give his version and bias of religious extremism and fanaticism in India rather than condemn another person's work. Mehta can cover areas that Holy Warrior felt were irrelevant to the message its author wants to impart to the readers. And that is a writers' prerogative as we writers know. VRR: You do not like it because it was unfavourable. GL: This comment puzzles me. You seem to agree with me and others that it was unfavorable. But to clarify, do YOU think the Mehta review was favorable? Or do YOU think the review was unfavorable? Do YOU LIKE the review because it was unfavorable? Of course you could skirt the issue by saying you have no opinion on the review. This I would find a puzzle too because one either likes what one reads or you don’t like what is written - this is what started this dialogue. Do you think a book that is accepted and published by a major publishing house in India is as uniformly bad as Mehta makes it out to be? Don't you think the book went through internal (not to mention the author's private) reviews prior to being accepted / sent for publication? What does your writer's experience tell you? Does a Goan web page and Goan journalist have to give prominence to an unfavorable review of a Goan-authored book, while "tucking away" as a link the very favorable review? What do your Goan instincts tell you? VRR: Other reviews may surface in time that are more to your liking, but that will in no way change Dr. Mehta's position. He wrote what he felt he needed to write. GL: My efforts are not to change Mehta's position. My efforts are to make Goans aware that we have a recognized (perhaps not by Goans) individual in our midst. She has articulated many issues that Goans and Christians in India have experienced. Her book is likely to provide many answers that may be useful. And prepare us better to preempt if not prevent another period of fanaticism in India and Goa. I wish Holy Warriors' contents is a topic for many group-discussion and workshops across Goa AND India and across the globe. As Singh states in his review, "It is a must for all of those who wish this country to prosper as a secular democracy." Let me thank you, Victor, for the excellent points you raise and for the high standards which certainly advanced the dialogue. I have tried to reciprocate. Hopefully cyber-Goans will gain much from this exchange of views regarding a tragic issue of sectarian violence that has affected Goa and India in recent years, and is likely to visit again. I appreciate you and others are trying to present an intellectual perspective to Mehta's review. I, on my part, am not presenting you as a writer and as a Goan, who is not supporting another Goan writer and achiever. I thank the cyber-Goans for following this dialogue and the Goanet moderators for providing a medium for it. Regards, Gilbert Lawrence _____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list ([email protected])
