That the arguments are *important*, to start with, > and then that they are *right*? >
Mm. There's so much of debate over the person that the issue gets lost. And it isn't just the case for Arundhati Roy's work. There are so many others, where the dissection of where the person comes from, their intent etc gains prominence at the cost of the issue. I don't have an answer, issue versus personality, but when the scales tip on the side of the person, I think there is a problem. Having said that, sometimes it does become important to understand where a work is coming from - for instance, Chimamanda Adichie argues beautifully the need for people from the African Continent to claim and write their own stories in Half of a Yellow Sun. It is a political statement, and she makes it eloquently in the book. But it takes a book to make such a statement without sounding silly or one-sided, because the issue is that much nuanced. Somewhere in the thread Katherine B's book was mentioned. I haven't read it. And I did see quite a lot of criticism based on K's background. That to me is an important debate. What kind of stories do you tell? Instead of posing the question in that fashion, it could be -- what kind of stories can you honestly tell? There's a book by Barbara Kingsolver - Lacuna. She writes the story as if someone of her background is going through the protagonist's diaries - a way bringing in the biases of the author. To me that was an interesting approach. That piece by Lakshmi C to me is sensible because it is not just about one thing -- issue versus personality or issues or personality. She tackles all of these together, the piece, its merits, demerits, the author, the audience, the response, etc. And that's why it makes sense, it is quite a well-argued piece, which doesn't drown in diatribe or despair.
