Best novels of
the century
By V. Gangadhar

IT is only mid-1998, but as we approach the 21st century, the ranking game had started. "Time" magazine had already come out with the most famous leaders and artists and entertainers of the century. More categories will follow in due course.

Normally, such a selection and the ranking games are played at the end of every year when the best movies, best books, plays, songs and so on were chosen by the media. But the present timing was different and more important. The rankings had to cover an entire century and this is an unenviable task.

Best novels of the century

By V. Gangadhar

IT is only mid-1998, but as we approach the 21st century, the ranking game had started. "Time" magazine had already come out with the most famous leaders and artists and entertainers of the century. More categories will follow in due course.

Normally, such a selection and the ranking games are played at the end of every year when the best movies, best books, plays, songs and so on were chosen by the media. But the present timing was different and more important. The rankings had to cover an entire century and this is an unenviable task.

But it is an intellectual pursuit which normally leads to heated controversies. No two people were likely to agree on any aspect of the selections, and I guess, that is what makes the ranking game all the more interesting. Was "Time" right in including Marlon Brando as one of the best entertainers of the century? His detractors would definitely point out to his inconsistency and his mumbling and thus question the choice of the magazine.

The most recent exercise of this kind was the publication of the 100 great novels of the 20th century by a panel appointed by the Random House Publishing house in the USA. The panel consisted of American authors (Gore Vidal, William Styron), historians (Edmund Morris, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Shelby Foote), a former librarian of the US Congress, (Daniel Boorstein). English novelist Ms A.S. Byatt was also a member of the panel. Blacks and minorities were excluded and this had led to some well-deserved protest.

One of the most memorable critical works I had ever read was Somerset Maugham’s ‘Ten Best Novels of the World’. The wellknown British novelist and short story writer had included such classics as ‘War and Peace’, ‘Pride and Prejudice’, ‘Moby Dick’, ‘Wuthering Heights’, ‘Scarlet and the Black’ and ‘David Copperfield’ in his list and produced impeccable arguments supporting his choice. By and large, very few literary people could question Maugham’s choice though it covered the literary panorama through the ages.

Compared to Maugham, the Random House panel had a comparatively easier job. At the same time, a panel will always find it difficult to agree on any issue. I am certain members of the panel were asked to nominate 20 or 25 books each and these were not questioned by the others. The list, as was to be expected, was dominated by American authors, though it also included 39 British writers including Lawrence, Greene, Forster, Orwell. Writers of Commonwealth nations like India, Australia, South Africa and Sri Lanka, would be naturally peeved at their total exclusion.

I could not understand the omission of Nobel Prize winner Patrick White, an Australian. While Indian stalwarts like R.K. Narayanan and Raja Rao could be considered too regional, it was surprising that V.S. Naipaul could not make it to the first 50. His best known novels, ‘A House for Mr Biswas’ and ‘A Bend in the River’ finished 72 and 83 in the list. Salman Rushdie’s brilliant novel, ‘Midnight’s Children’ was placed as low as 90.

Such rankings will, of course, rake up controversies. But can James Joycel’s ‘Ulysses’ deserve to be ranked at the top place? The art of the novel and its theme were no doubt important, but what about readability? How many thousands of readers really did manage to go through the book which dealt with the happenings to certain Dubliners on a single day. I had known several avid readers who complained they could not go beyond the first 50 pages of the book. "What was Joyce trying to say?" they complained. "The contents were quite above our heads." His ‘Finnegan’s Wake’ was an even more difficult book.

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘Great Gatsby’ was nominated for the second place. This was also a surprise choice. Now, Fitzgerald was a very good writer, but ‘Gatsby’ was too American and lightweight to be placed above the great works of Greene, Hemingway and Faulkner. ‘Gatsby’ was highly readable, but did it have the universal appeal to hold such a high place? At the same time, it had a strong appeal to the Americans who came to regard Fitzgerald as a cult figure. That was why a rival list prepared by 100 students of Radcliffe University, put ‘Gatsby’ at the top! An editorial in New York Times quite rightly questioned the propriety of ranking Fitzgerald above Hemingway and Faulkner.

It was mentioned that five novels had tied for the first place in the Random House list. These were ‘Ulysses’, ‘Great Gatsby’, ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young man’, ‘Lolita’ and ‘Brave New World’ by Aldoux Huxley. A second vote was called for to rank the five. I was happy that Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’ finished as high as number four. This was one of the most brilliant books written in English, the eroticism being memorable without degenerating into crudity. It was also ironical that despite such an accolade from the literary giants, the recent movie version of the book could not be released in many nations because of censor problems! Its director Adrian Lyne struggled for nearly 16 months in getting the film released. So much for artistic freedom.

If one overlooked the first choice of "Gatsby", the Radcliffe list of the best 100 novels, looked more rational. Students will be students and perhaps that was why Salinger’s ‘Catcher in the Rye’ was placed second. After all, many of them sympathised with the antics of its hero, Holden Caulfield, who could not settle down in any school because he found so much hypocrisy everywhere. Equally welcome was the number four choice, ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ by Harper Lee. Mind you, this was his first novel! It brilliantly portrayed a father-children relationship and the racial discrimination in the South. "Ulysses" was relegated to number six, ‘Lolita’ to number 11, but Steinbeck’s ‘Grapes of Wrath’ was deservingly promoted to number 3. Another modern novel, ‘Colour Purple’ by Alice Walker was placed at number 5. I think the students showed a keen appreciation of the writing art when they ranked Hemingway’s ‘The Sun Also Rises’ above the more famous ‘A Farewell to Arms’ and ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’. The characterisation in the first book is much more subtle and the impotent hero, Jake Barnes possessed heart-tugging appeal.

The Radcliffe list, I think, gave much more importance to readability. How else can one explain the selection of ‘Rebecca’, ‘The Maltese Falcon’ and the ‘War of the Worlds’. The students were game enough to include books with a wider variety of themes. Truman Capote’s ‘In Cold Blood’ was not really fiction. Dealing with the multiple murder of the Clutter family in a small Kansas town, the book was touted as a ‘faction’, a combination of fact and fiction. ‘A Clockwork Orange’ dealing with the theme of mindless violence among the modern youth, was not considered by the Random House panel, but was listed 49th in the Radcliffe panel which had ‘Midnight’s Children’ as low as 100.

"We speak more to the popular media than the Random House list" explained 25-year old Rainikka Corprew, one of the readers for the Radcliffe group. She had read about 60 per cent of the books in the list and also 40 to 45 per cent from the other list. It was certainly the impetuosity of youth which made them rank Rushdie’s "Satanic Verses’ above ‘Midnight’s Children’. But then one must make allowances for such exuberance.

Are there any serious misses from both the lists? I am surprised that the great Welsh novel, ‘How Green was my valley’ missed out. C.P. Snow was acknowledged to be a high-ranking second grade novelist, but his one great political novel, ‘The Corridors of Power’ should have figured in the lists. I am also unhappy that the youthful literary giants of the Radcliffe group ignored the claims of crime writer, P.D. James.

But then, this is only the beginning. In the days to come, there will be more lists. More controversy. I am surprised that the lists were released in mid-1998. Did that mean that the people behind the lists were certain that no great books would be written during the rest of the century? That is one year and five months?

‘Payyoli Express’ runs again

By Harihar Swarup

RARELY athletes and, for that matter, sportsmen — a cricketer, a footballer, a hockey star or a tennis champion — stage a come back. There is a peak for them and they reach that dizzy height of glory quite early in age and thereafter retire or fade away. The period of peak comes in the early twenties and thereafter the decline starts. By the time a sports star reaches thirty, he becomes the elder statesman; some become coaches, some expert radio and TV commentators. Those with good command over language become columnists and their specialised writings appear in sport pages with photographs.

There were days of the legendary Dhyan Chand who had come to be known as the hockey wizard internationally but once he was out of the field, he never staged a comeback. Milkha Singh became immortal, having raced gallantly at the Rome Olympics in 1960 and acquired the epithet, "Flying Sikh". That was the peak of his career.

P.T. Usha is the only exception in Indian sport and, perhaps, in the world who has returned to the tracks after having retired with full honours; she was hailed as the "Asian track queen of the eighties". She had bid goodbye to the tracks eight years back, married and settled down to a happy family life, having given birth to a son. Usha’s husband, Sreenivasan, a kabaddi player, has been the moving spirit behind her second birth as an athlete and, in real sense, her coach. As the sun sets down at Bangalore’s Sports Authority of India centre, the passersby could daily see the shadow of a lonely figure, darting over the tracks. She was watched and bucked up by Sreenivasan and their infant son, Vignesh Ujjwal. Vignesh is now a student of first standard and has begun following the footsteps of his mother. He participated in his school’s race and brought a trophy home. His parents were delighted.

Usha was on the comeback trail in 1994 having entered the Hiroshima Asian Games but was relegated to the fourth position in the 200-metre race. Her husband never allowed demoralisation to set in and her dogged determination paid after four years. At the Asian Track and Field Championships in Fukuoka in Japan last week, Usha bagged a gold in 4x100-metre relay, silver in 4x400-metre relay and bronze both in the 200-metre and 400-metre. She is 33 and much older than her competitors at Fukuoka. All her contemporaries of yesteryears — Ashwini Nachappa, Shiny Abraham, Lydia de Vega — only remain memory of a good time. Usha had won her last Asian medal nine years ago.

Tongues wagged when Usha declared her intention to come back to the tracks, some of her fans thought it was a joke. An athlete of the eighties, now 33, married and a mother, having put on several kg would race, compete in international meets........what a crude joke.

That was not the end of Usha’s comeback trauma. It was like a blow when O.M. Nambiar, the coach who made her the sprint queen of the eighties, refused to train her for the Asian Track and Field Meet at Manila. Nambiar was, evidently, more keen to discover new Ushas, train them and put them on the track. Usha’s husband has been quoted as saying that she was badly hurt by the attitude of Nambiar and cried bitterly and did not eat.

The second shock came when younger rivals, much younger than her in age, mocked at her and one of them even reportedly threatened: "I will chase Usha wherever she goes and make her bite the dust at least a hundred times". Worse was when her baiters, including a few of her one-time fans, ridiculed her for trying to stage a comeback at this age. Caustic comments from sports officers and coaches did not deter her from the course she had set for herself. All the sarcasm turned into praise after Usha’s sensational performance in the Asian Athletic Championship in Japan.

The wonder girl from Kerala, described widely in sports circles as "Payyoli Express", has set her eyes on the Asian Games, scheduled to be held in Bangkok in December. She is again the only hope for India. The games at Sydney, slated in the year 2000, yet appear to be distant dream. Her present coach, J.S. Bhatia, says; "She is once again our best hope for the Asian Games".

Usha is now more confident than ever before as she defied age with four medals in Japan. Soon after her gallant performance in Fukuoka, exuding determination, she remarked: "I will definitely win gold at the Asian Games in Bangkok later this year". She will, however, do well to keep in mind the advice of Vijay Merchant: "Quit when your admirers are likely to ask why; never wait until they start asking why not"?

75 YEARS AGO

Case against "Kesri"

HEARING in the case against Lala Sham Lal, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the "Kesri", was resumed on Monday, in the court of the District Magistrate, Lahore.

The accused was represented by Dr Nand Lal, MLA, and Mr Amolak Ram Kapur, while M. Abdul Wahid appeared on behalf of the Crown.

The prosecution evidence was concluded by the examination of two more witnesses.

M. Abdul Qadir

M. Abdul Qadir, contractor, was the first witness. He deposed that he read the alleged offensive article in the issue of the "Kesri". The witness took objection to the article because an unwarranted and improper attack was made against the Prophet, as well as against the Mohammadan princes.

The whole Muslim community was enraged at the article and whomsoever the witness met, he expressed great resentment at the action of the writer.

Cross examination: Cross-examined by Dr Nand Lal, counsel for the defence, the witness stated that he did not subscribe to the "Kesri" himself, but he saw the issue of the paper in question at the house of his neighbour, where four or five persons were reading the article.