Monday, May 02, 2011

Battle for Bittora

Battle for Bittora is Anuja Chauhan’s second book, another wickedly funny, light-hearted romance set in contemporary India, and it’s been very interesting to see how she’s evolved/changed as an author from The Zoya Factor. Not to mention, it’s such a great read by itself.

*Spoilers galore, mind*

UPDATE: I deleted this paragraph before posting first because it seemed too corporate & 'pat', but I really want to make the conclusions explicit, so I'm putting it back in...I think the big change is Chauhan's increased confidence - in her content (#1 below and #5) and in the business (#3 & #4), and in her craft (which comes across in #6 and #2 below, where the confidence wasn't as warranted). Content and business are maybe easier to learn than craft? Or does the learning curve for craft, as opposed to content/business take up some funny plateaus on its way? Or worse, does success lead to a flattening of the only learning curve that truly matters for a fiction writer - craft (as opposed to a technical writer for whom content is key)? Anyway, here are my thoughts.....

First, let me just state how much I love the casual feminism in Bittora:
  • The plethora of fantastic, fully realized female characters here makes this book easily pass the Bedchel Test, and I’m not sure The Zoya Factor does that.
  • She wins!!! She wins!!! They have a political battle, and she wins, fair and square. I was dreading reading the ending of the book because I was expecting it to be something like Zain winning, and Jinni totally making an unbelievably submissive cop-out at the end, like realizing at the last minute that she never had wanted the seat, and then Zain offering to make her his second-in-command, which would’ve left such, such, such a bad taste in my mouth.
  • I love how she has an internal life and a purpose throughout the book, and that the reader can believe that she has a life path ahead of her after the ending, too. Unlike Zoya, where the romance was the main story, and you were left wondering if she quit her job afterward or something.
  • The protagonist’s last name is the same as her maternal grandmother’s, and there is no explanation of this. None whatsoever. Smart writing, too, because saying anything there would’ve just sounded contrived and defensive. This is an unlikely scenario, but not all that unbelievable, especially in the anything-goes world of Indian politics (Indira Gandhi appropriated the ‘Gandhi’ name quite randomly, for instance).
  • No Disney-dead-mother syndrome here, thank you very much. And the woman character gets a cool, permissive mom, too, the likes of which usually cool male characters get. The women get cool dads and dead, or absent, or subservient moms.
  • Chauhan dismisses Rahul Mahajan categorically. I wish she also dissed Salman Khan less subtly.
  • How fantastic was Ammaji’s comment about wanting to ‘settle’ her granddaughter - i.e., her career, not her marriage. For all her religious bigotry, how very, very far-thinking and impressive.

Second, and hopefully not caused by the first point above: somehow for me, the romance isn’t that very strong. It’s still amazing, and better than most other books, but Zoya Factor wins, very slightly, here. It’s not for lack of a fantastic hero in Bittora - if anything, Zain Altaf Khan is even more ‘eligible’ than Nikhil Khoda - he is equally handsome, of royal blood, is an environmental engineer and an MIT graduate, and as a teenager, wrote a superhero series - and has compelling vulnerabilities! All of this should’ve totally made him more compelling than the sports-quota-type, back-story-missing Khoda, at least for someone like me (erm, I still swoon over liberal young handsome Indian Muslim men with the nostalgia of my own love. But, TMI). What gives, then?
Maybe it is just the fact that this is a repeat performance, and nothing beats the first, unspoiled, original version.
Maybe it is the fact that the first book was focused more on the romance and less on the Zoya Factor phenomenon, and the second book was focused equally on the political battle and the romance (actually this one is hard to say. I think both were equally split!).
Maybe because Zain never does something completely unexpected and out-of-the-blue in the romance, he’s never pushing the envelope, unlike Khoda with his ‘I’ve been wanting to kiss you all evening’ and his random intimate text messages especially in public, his popping-up-in-her-hotel-rooms when least expected, etc.
Maybe it is because all the back-story of the romance is between sixteen-year olds and thirteen-year-olds in Bittora, and that for me was borderline creepy and often boring.
Maybe because the first time they meet, they instantly jump into their make-out session, with no build-up for the reader. Anticipation is half the fun.
Maybe in said ‘first-for-the-reader-make-out-session’, Zain disregards her non-consent and kisses her. Somehow that wasn’t as hot as I think the author set it out to be. Khoda does a similar thing towards the end of the first book and that played out as playful (ha!), here I found it distasteful.
Maybe it is because I was put off by the crude ancillary references, e.g. Tawny uncle’s son The Rapist, the crowd’s groping at the mela, etc. that were all supposed to be casually laughed off (and were pretty much correct-for-context), but which totally put me in a defensive, disgusted mood, not receptive towards the actual romance. In Zoya Factor, the ancillary references are equally crude, but they refer to sex (not rape).
Maybe it is because the supporting cast in Bittora - especially Ammaji - was so solidly crafted that your attention was split, vs. in the first book where no one else apart from the main characters got to monopolize reader attention & affection.
Maybe it is the fact that in the Big Contest in the book, Khoda won his battle, but Zain lost. Did ‘loser stench’ ruin the latter’s alpha male scent?
Maybe it is that Khoda kept his hands and nose very clean and never lost the high moral ground during the book, even in times of stress with Jogpal & Sons. Zain was doing as much mud-slinging and dirt-throwing as his competitors in the electoral battle. A Bauji-type honest man would’ve called for suspension of disbelief, but wouldn’t’ve been totally impossible, would he?
Maybe it is that Khoda was shown to be a leader of men, literally, but Zain was only shown to command his friends’ loyalty, which is admirable, but less sexy.
Maybe it is because the captain of a successful Indian cricket team is unattainably desirable, but there are a hundred former-prince’s-son-types around?
Maybe, paradoxically, it is because there is a close real-life analogy to Khoda in M S Dhoni but someone like Zain isn’t really around today (no, not even Omar Sharief).
Maybe it is the face that the power and social status imbalance is so little, almost negligible, between Zain and Jinni, rather than the insurmountable gulf of celebrity between Khoda and Zoya. And obviously power imbalances are what make (straight?) women swoon with lust, or something.
(Oh, and of the four main characters, I only referred to Khoda by last name in my first draft of this post, then went to correct it, and stopped myself. Maybe my subconscious is telling me something. That I think of Khoda as more male? That the author thinks of Khoda as more male? She keeps calling Zain ‘Zain’, but called Nikhil Khoda ‘Khoda’ almost throughout. Men are usually called by their last names, especially in situations of power and authority, and women are called by their first names - through history, and for various reasons. Remember how everyone back in 2008 called Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ‘Obama’ and ‘Hillary’ respectively?)

Third, the Hinglish was so much more obvious here in Bittora. There was not even the perfunctory attempt as in the first to ease the way for readers who didn’t speak Hindi or know local references. This is an unapologetic “of Indians, by Indians, for Indians” book. While I’m impressed with such confidence and a little intimidated (what to do, I’m a pasty-faced NRI), a part of me does wish they would care for their overseas readers, even if it’s just so readers like me could share the book with local friends here. But yooooohooooo for no more stupid substitutions like ‘unleavened bread with clarified butter’ for roti-and-ghee, like in English books by Indians published even as late as 2002.
This means the economics of the publishing/book selling business is so sound in desh that it can sustain itself, which is more than the US publishing business can say for itself. Despite nakli books sold by eight-years olds at traffic lights. Good for you, desh.

Fourth, and related to the above, the target audience seems to be a more mainstream Indian than the SEC A, urban woman target audience of Zoya Factor. There aren’t too many highbrow riffs on people who use unnecessary plurals (‘anyways’/‘grands’/‘butts’); instead, the riffs are now on people who ask politicians for favors. The internal demon that gets defeated is not a nation’s harmless superstitions during cricket matches but the violent, all-pervasive, gut-wrenching religious bigotry.

Fifth, and this is not a change in Chauhan’s writing as much as a repeat performance. I’ve also recently read a couple of other desi chick-lit books, and wanted to gouge my eyes out. The plot is non-existent. The heroes are vapid. There is absolutely no originality to the stories or the characters or the conflict or the treatment. There is liberal lifting of entire narrative arcs from Sex and the City and Bridget Jones’ Diary, the wannabe-ness of it all is depressing. Oh, and the editing is SO disgusting, SO terrible the editors should commit hara-kiri. In Advaitha Kala’s Almost Single, the very first line has the protagonist waking up from a ‘deep dreamless REM sleep’ and I read that and threw the book across the room in disgust. Unfortunately, in a moment of weakness I picked the book off the floor a few days later and continued reading, to my eternal regret. Another book - Kkarishma’s Konfessions, was it? - has a blatant error in the first page: someone is someone’s elder sister, then suddenly becomes the younger sister in page two and goes on. And that typo is not even an ironic insight into the idiotic world of Indian soaps. If it was an insight, it was way too subtle as irony and way too obvious as a typo.
So, compared to genre, Chauhan’s books are high literature, which is not saying much. But even by themselves, her books are well researched and grounded in their industry and setting (rural India and politics for Bittora, cricket and advertising for The Zoya Factor), have lots of in-jokes about Bollywood and pop culture, and lots of really funny random insights (“like all visiting NRIs, [mother] was obviously hoping to squeeze both a funeral and a wedding into one India trip” - Bittora, or “People who knew only one language...what would they switch to if they started getting pally, or angry, or fell in love?” - Zoya Factor)

Sixth: I love that this one had a much more satisfying ending. This book had closure. Of the relationship, and also, for the character’s individual lives. Zoya Factor didn’t. I kept turning the page to see if I’d missed the last part. That, if nothing else, makes author confidence very clear, as I'm realizing in my own writing.

So what's unchanged?

As before, Chauhan’s own stated real-life inspiration for the hero (Saif Ali Khan for Zain Altaf Khan) completely rings false (like Rahul Dravid for Nikhil Khoda. Ew.) Saif when younger was too dissolute and completely unlike current-time-Zain or even younger-Zain. And current Saif? Oh, please. The guy is more and more like a real-life Macbeth, with his insecurities and his younger, prettier girlfriend.
As before, I can imagine only Farhan Akhtar in today’s Bollywood doing any justice to Zain’s character. Stretch it to Imran Khan, or (ugh) Ranbir Kapoor. I actually know some people in real life who’d play this role perfectly, too. Jinni would have to be Ayesha Dharkar, I suppose, just to be able to do justice to the ‘abnormally wide smile’. Konkana & Kareena are good stretch choices.

Finally: if she were to ask me: dude, what should I change in my next book, I’d say:
Please have a genuine love triangle. I’m curious to see how you’ll write that. Oh, and please don’t have a creepy, precocious pre-teen male child with an inappropriate obsession (women’s panties/torture). It’s too done, and done irritatingly. And get yourself a website, woman, it is 2011 already, and even fans have needs - e.g. to obsessively stalk their authors.

Oh, oh, and write more. Please.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

The Zoya Factor

Just finished re-reading the excellent chick-lit "The Zoya Factor". For the record, I have no major qualms about using the word (phrase?) 'chick-lit' to describe the broad genre of easy-breezy reads involving contemporary-to-the-times characters, a female protagonist - a usually ditsy and often extremely insecure female protagonist - dealing with relationship issues, presented to the reader with situational, self-directed humor, and involving a happy ending. I wish we could come up with a slightly less condescending name, but I can live with 'chick-lit' because it captures the spirit of the books themselves - irreverent, playful, self-deprecating. It's the covers of these chick-lits - uniformly involving red stilettos, 'cartoon' drawings on the cover, primary/pastel colors - that usually get my goat. And the utterly boring, predictable plots that some of them have - seriously, even if it is 'chick-lit', you still need to put in *some* work, Ms./Mr.Author!! Oh, and yes, the irritating stupidity of the heroines, who just can't seem to handle the fact that they have actual brain cells in their heads.

But The Zoya Factor is not irritating. The Zoya Factor is not thoughtless. For the most. And Zoya, the protagonist, is silly, but not teeth-grinding-inducingly stupid. I love that it is set in the familiar world (for me) of advertising/marketing. I love that it involves a seriously ambitious love interest - it doesn't get bigger than the captain of the Indian cricket team. Oh, and did I say the humor is spot-on?

I'm not going to review this one thoroughly, because there isn't much to review - it's a pretty straightforward story that makes fun of 'India shining' while also being reclaiming 'India shining' for itself, in the whole Luck-by-Chance/Om-Shanti-Om style. Anuja Chauhan, the author (who's from my college!! WHEEE!!!), doesn't waste too much space setting context or even background for Nikhil Khoda, and with good reason. Her secondary characters are excellent, the love story holds your interest, the conflict could've been better - it is contrived in places, but not terribly irritating, so I'll let that go. And the romantic pay-offs are superb.

Oh, and Nikhil Khoda has to be the sexiest romantic hero EVER. Really. He's in Rhett Butler/Mr.Darcy league. That is all.

Anuja does the cricket well, though I do wish she'd spent just a little more time, but that's a personal preference. Of course, she does the cricket-and-advertising pitch perfectly (see what I did there?), she does cricket-as-national-religion and cricketers-under-pressure pretty well. She's also incorporated the whole Greg Chappell-Saurav Ganguly-Jagmohan Dalmiya fiasco, leaked email and all. Unfortunately (for me), she takes Chappell's side very, very unambiguously, and makes Ganguly and Dalmiya look like buffoons. During the controversy, I'd felt - along with most Indians - that the Australian-import Chappell was being totally unfair to Ganguly, so here I will need to disagree with Chauhan. But of course, she probably has loads of better information. Maybe the former Indian captain was a shoe-stealer and weight-thrower during her Pepsi shoots? And this was her way of getting the perfect revenge? And maybe Red Chillies optioned for movie rights *after* Ganguly was out of KKR? Huh? Huh?

Because the script hews closely to actual current events, it's fun to play guess-who. Khoda is Dhoni, despite the author's protests. Sorry, but I just.do.not.see a 'younger, unspoilt Rahul Dravid' there. If anything, I can see a bit of Ganguly in the arrogance. Of course, Khoda is too metrosexual, dripping sophistication, compared to M S Dhoni's earthy-cool. But the records are similar, and there's just too many parallels.

Harry/Hairy is very likely a mix of Harbhajan and Yuvraj Singh ('cut surd', juvenile antics, aggressive on-field, etc.). Zaheer Pathan is, of course, Irfan Pathan, who was looking really good in 2005-6 when she was likely writing the book. Soon after, his luck turned south: but he's been immortalized in the book, good for him! I'm guessing the others: Monita-Rinku-Chachi-Zoravar-Papa-etc are from Chauhan's family/friends/acquaintances circle.

And now that the movie is being made, these are my picks for casting choices:

Zoya Singh Solanki:

  1. Preity Zinta, 10 years ago, would be my top pick. And if Aamir Khan can play a 17-year old in 3 idiots, why can't Preity Zinta play a 27-year old lead? I would totally cast her. With crazy curly hair, of course.
  2. Amrita Puri. She could do the ditzy stuff well, and of course be Karol-Bagh-Solanki to the tee. And I *think* she could pull off the advertising executive work - but that needs to be seen.
  3. Konkana Sen Sharma. I can see her do both the ad-exec and the Karol-Bagh thing well. But she's probably a bit too self-possessed to do the ditzy stuff. Well, she's an actor, who knows. But this would be an interesting choice.
  4. Anushka Sharma. But I'm so, so tired of her being the Punju babe.
  5. Deepika Padukone, Sonam Kapoor, etc. - too urbane. But who knows, maybe they can pull off this role.

Nikhil Khoda - oh you dreamy, dreamy man.

  1. Farhan Akhtar. Top pick, hands down. Looks like a sportsman. Can totally do the intense, brooding "leader of men" thing. And looks dishy, oh, so dishy (forgive me, I just re-watched Luck by Chance recently!). Can do the romantic/angry/sexy scenes SO WELL. And is probably one of the three ONLY actors in Bollywood who can say 'musical soiree' and 'pyromaniac' without sounding like he had to practice in front of his bathroom mirror for days (the other two being, maybe, Abhay Deol and Shah Rukh Khan).
  2. John Abraham. Needs to stand up straighter to pull off the sportsman thing. And has been playing too many wing-man roles for me to be able to picture him as Alpha Male quite as well. But he does have potential.
  3. Siddharth (the guy in Rang De Basanti). Intense, brooking, blah, blah blah. Also, looks a lot like a younger Dhoni, but pseud-er, which is what we're looking for. I just can't picture him being masterful enough, but you could probably compensate with camera angles or background score or something.
  4. Imran Khan. In a pinch. Can't act for nuts - yet. Especially not the angry/intense scenes. But he looks the part.
  5. Ranbir Kapoor - NO NO NO. He's over-exposed, and a real-life d*ck. He'll totally make the movie about himself, instead of supporting the woman lead. Doesn't look the part ONE bit (dark, sportsman, intense, etc.). Can act all right, but is - and looks - too entitled to be a hungry-to-prove-himself-rookie-Indian-skipper. I only added him to the list because there're rumors doing the rounds that he's playing Khoda. Please, SRK, NO!! Don't destroy Nikhil Khoda for me!
  6. Hrithik Roshan - Not really. Too old, for one. And too, too good looking. But he has magic, and can probably pull off the role better than others who're more suited for it.

So that's my take. Can't wait for the movie, especially since Reema Kagti is supposed to be working on the screenplay (SQUEEEEEE!!!!).

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Breaking stereotypes = breaking internalized belief systems.

Just a quick re-post of my comment on the fabulous IHM's blog on her tag about how we're all non-stereotypical (link to her post here, to my comment here ). Basically, my point is that in order to truly break stereotypes, we need to subvert internalized belief systems, or else we may just end up reinforcing narratives and power structures. This is Game Theory 101 - by ensuring that OTHERS stay in line and WE break free, we do get a big short-term benefit bump, but for real long-term sustainable benefit, we ALL need to break the stereotypes.

First off, this is an awesome tag, loved the idea that if enough of us speak up about how we're not stereotypically female/male we'd all collectively have enough ammunition to break the gender molds for ourselves and for others.
However: I'm sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but after going through yet another cring-inducing blogpost on this subject, I need to say this.
As I go around reading all that everyone's written (and yeah, almost everyone on the desi blogosphere has taken up the tag), most women seem to take this on as a challenge to appear 'cooler' than other women because they don't do what 'so many other women do'. Instead of this being an exercise in celebrating our collective sisterhood & our delicious differences, it's become another attempt in one-up-man(!)-ship. I'm cringing as I see women so stridently separate themselves from 'OTHER' women who're so 'DISGUSTINGLY GIRLY'. The posts almost speak to some audience whose approval is being sought - and given the patriarchy that we all function under, very likely some imaginary male audience. This is first off disturbing because it casts all women as opponents of one another - that for one of us to win, another has to lose, because this is a zero sum game. Instead of leading to acceptance of our differences, we're all exacerbating them and using them as weapons. It just adds to the subconscious belief that women cannot be friends, because we're all threatened by each other, because we're all going after the same target: MAN. As it is, "our culture provides so precious few narratives about women in shared spaces, about female allies, about women who deeply love other women, about sisterhood. And its lovely, lovely benefits." to quote the fabulous Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister. This tag against gender stereotypes has become more of a tag against your own gender.
Secondly, this avalanche of blog posts that implicitly criticize other women for being girly (liking pink, liking dressing up, loving to cook and clean) and self-congratulatorily praise the writer's lack of such girliness (oh, I'm so cool 'coz I like BLUE!!! and I like CARS!! and HATE COOKING!! and NEVER WANNA CUDDLE BABIES!!) only feeds into the existing narrative that marginalizes all female or feminine qualities as being less desirable, and everything male as being the ideal, default state. Our collective conscious already internalizes messages like this - a young girl who likes climbing up trees is indulgently called a tomboy. A young boy who likes girly things - say dolls, or pink tutus, or cooking, or ice-cream - is seen as a freak, someone disgusting, someone to be made fun of. The parents of such a young girl will likely as not warn her that she will need to become feminine as she grows up to be successful (success as defined by being happily married, have babies, etc.). The parents of such a young boy will likely as not be extremely anguished as they wonder what they did wrong - his youthful interests will be seen as indicative of his weakness, or mental imbalances (like as not, this will lead directly to people assuming that his father does not have enough 'manhood' in him and therefore cannot pass on enough of it to his son, or that the boy's mother is too dominating). [See this for a great revelatory of how power = masculine and weakness = feminine in the English language: http://bit.ly/dyseG4 ] The last thing we as a culture need is more such stigmatization of womanly qualities, more reinforcement of toxic prejudices, more insecurities amongst our women.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Observation of the day

When South Indians want to criticize North Indians, they call them uneducated. When North Indians want to insult South Indians, they call them South Indians.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Different but equal

At first read, this sounds like one of the usual nonsensical statements regularly spouted by celebrities:
Amitabh Bachchan, who teamed up with producer Ambika Hinduja and director Leena Yadav for Teen Patti, says he doesn't mind working under women as they are more capable than men.

Asked if there was any difference in working with an all women team, he said: "There was no difference at all... Women are more efficient than men."
The last two sentences so clearly contradict each other that you're left scratching your head. But think about it - it's a brilliant statement, if only for the fact that it exposes the lie inherent when people say 'men and women are just different, but equal' (like they said a hundred years ago 'black and white children are separate, but equal'). How can women be the same as men and also more efficient - unless Amitabh was elaborating on his first statement using the second?

Different = inferior. It is codified in the way we think, we express ourselves. When we see someone 'different', we internally categorize them as inferior (why else would Sandra Oh be considered ugly?). The word 'different' is a polite way of saying 'eww' about a person or a thing, much as 'interesting' is a polite way of saying 'the experience sucked'.

So the next time someone says 'oh, men and women are just different', you know they mean to say one is inferior to the other.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Why we need feminism - Part 100,000,000

MNIK wouldn't've been made! *Spoiler* The whole premise of Kajol's son being killed because his name is Khan would not've come about if Kajol, as a feminist, didn't change her name on her marriage to SRK. And in her whole rant on the football field ("I should not've met you/we should not've married/blah blah") not once did she bring about the idea that she should not have changed her name (in effect, a transfer of ownership of 'Mandira', her character, from her father/ex-husband to her current husband).

Bollywood - and K JO - need a little feminism-awareness stat.