On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/12/mumbai-arundhati-roy/print >>> This is interesting: >>> http://greatbong.net/2008/12/16/the-algebra-of-infinite-fundamentalism/ >> >> >> Udhay, please expand. Which of these do you find more compelling? > > Tim, > > "compelling" is a red herring. I've made no secret of my opinion that > Arundhati Roy is fundamentally dishonest; in approximately the same > way that Tom Friedman is dishonest (and how's that for irony?) - Her > agenda shines through even more in what is NOT said (i.e, carefully or > conveniently omitted from her effusions) than in what is said - though > that is certainly shrill enough. > > Read as fiction, her faults are many. Read as fact or analysis, not > even in the frame.
This is what her fellow authors Salman Rushdie and Suketu Mehta had to say about that article. <quote> Salman Rushdie - "It is disgusting to read her comments. I find her thoughts nauseating. She should be ashamed of herself." Suketu Mehta joined Rushdie immediately pointing out dozens had died at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and asked if the train station wasn't an icon too? </quote> more @ http://specials.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/19slide2-understanding-the-mumbai-attacks.htm -- Vinayak -- Blog @ http://thoughts.vinayakhegde.com PS: Weird as it may seem, the other name that came to mind when discussing Arundhati Roy was Tom Friedman. Both are intellectually dishonest. Ms. Roy writes fiction and she should stick to it.
