(Published in the Business Standard, June 15, 2010)
In the fifteenth year of the Orange Prize, the debate over the world’s first literary prize exclusively for women has shifted. It used to be about men grumbling that women didn’t need a prize of their own; now the complaints sound suspiciously like the Orange is working so well that the men would also like a prize just to themselves.
Tough, since even today the Orange, by spotlighting five to six brilliant and often overlooked books by women each year, underlines how much publishing and literary prizes are still a man’s domain. Here are five great Orange winners who should be essential reading:
Carol Shields (Larry’s Party, 1998): Shields won her gong in the third year of the Orange Prize. She was well-known for The Stone Diaries, and the sweetly funny Larry’s Party wasn’t her best—but winning the Orange made her work accessible to a new generation of readers. Unless, her last novel, didn’t win the Orange—but it forms the best argument for the Prize, arguing that tiny, domestic themes are just as much the stuff of literature as larger, more “masculine” subjects.
Andrea Levy, Small Island (2004): Levy’s The Long Song, a slave’s-eye-view of came out this year to respectful reviews, but it’s Small Island that really captured our imaginations. Set in post-World War Two England, it’s a look at that time through the eyes of Caribbean migrants. Levy’s fourth book was her big breakthrough, both in terms of finding her audience, and finding her voice as a writer.
Lionel Shriver, We Need to Talk About Kevin (2005): There has seldom been such a controversial novel in the history of any prize. Shriver’s tale of school shootings and an alienated, monstrously difficult child took on our last contemporary myth—the myth that maternal love is unconditional and natural. It is also perhaps the best novel ever to be written about the peculiarly 21st century dilemma of surviving a personal tragedy that’s playing out in the full public glare.
Marilynne Robinson, Home (2009): The companion novel to Home, Gilead, was a surprising omission from the 2004 Orange shortlist—but Home made Robinson an icon. Through the lives of the Boughton family—a preacher father, an alcoholic son—what Robinson brought to her writing was craft; but it was also wisdom. These remain among the best, and best-loved, novels of the 21st century.
Barbara Kingsolver, The Lacuna (2010): The Lacuna is Kingsolver’s most ambitious novel—her best would probably still be The Poisonwood Bible. Kingsolver’s fierce political views and her revisioning of history run through the novel. Hillary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, the much-lauded historical novel about Thomas Cromwell, was considered the frontrunner for the prize, and Wolf Hall remains the more entertaining, gripping book. But The Lacuna is a reminder that a really great writer often brings their conscience to their writing.
The Davidar case: David Davidar’s exit from Penguin Canada, after sexual harassment charges were filed against him by a colleague, is one of the biggest, and messiest, publishing stories of the year. Here’s a timeline of events:
Early 2004: Davidar, then CEO of Penguin India, leaves to join Penguin Canada as Publisher.
2007: Lisa Rundle is promoted to Rights and Contracts Director, Penguin Canada.
2009: Davidar named CEO of Penguin International and President of Penguin Canada.
October 2009, Frankfurt: According to Lisa Rundle’s statement of claims, Davidar comes to her hotel room and sexually assaults her after she rejects his advances. She does not file charges at this time.
May 2010: Lisa Rundle leaves her job; it is unclear whether she resigns or is asked to quit. (Update: Rundle now says she was fired.)
June 8, 2010: Penguin Canada announces that David Davidar will be leaving to pursue his writing career.
June 9, 2010: Lisa Rundle files a $100,000 sexual harassment charges against Davidar personally and a $423,000 wrongful termination claims against Penguin Canada.
June 11, 2010: Davidar issues a statement saying he is “utterly shocked” by the allegations, acknowledging that he was asked to quit, and stating his intention to fight the charges.
At present, those who’ve worked with Davidar and know him well are in shock—HarperCollins CEO Karthika VK echoes the Indian publishing industry view when she says that nothing in David’s personal or professional record indicates that he would be capable of sexual assault, and she finds the charges “very hard to believe”. Rundle’s trauma is also intense; as her lawyer stated, it takes a lot for a woman to file sexual harassment charges. It would be improper to speculate on the facts of the case at this point—Rundle’s charges are available, but Davidar’s defence is not at present. (I have posted my personal experience of working with Davidar elsewhere, on my blog.)
Whatever the verdict, this is a saddening, unpleasant story, and it will leave a residue on the lives of both protagonists. This column will offer a more detailed analysis when the case comes to court.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems Ms Rundle may not have been the first victim. But from this distance there is nothing we can contribute to the story.
ReplyDeleteNilanjana, it is good that you observe the trauma Ms Rundle must be going through, but this column -- as well as your previous blogpost -- read very much like a defence of Davidar. It is true that you know him and not her, and I don't know either of them: but one can know people for years without knowing certain aspects of their personality. Saying, in effect, "but he didn't hit on me or on anyone I know" means nothing.
It is of course possible that the charges are false. So, as you say, we should wait for the legal process to go through, and not make a judgement in the absence of further, verifiable details. But, really, the Indian publishing industry's opinion of Mr Davidar is of ZERO importance in the matter and it is embarrassing that you feel the need to make such a defence. If he did harass one, or two, women, the fact that he failed to harass a hundred others will not move a jury. Besides, you know very well that harassment is less likely to be reported in India.
Thanks for your comment. The blog post, as I've mentioned, was purely personal, and I've stated my reasons for offering my opinion very clearly. My column was balanced and didn't offer a defence of Davidar--as I understand it, he's offering his own defence by next week, and I'm interested in seeing what he has to say to Ms Rundle's very specific and clear charges.
ReplyDeleteYour column devotes 21 words to Ms Rundle's "trauma", and a good bit more than that to Davidar's defenders. You also say "Rundle’s charges are available, but Davidar’s defence is not at present." Not true: Davidar says "The allegations are trumped up." Sounds clear enough to me -- he says the women are lying. His lawyers stop him from being more specific.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, it was relatively balanced, though the impression of personal bias does come through. As you say, let's wait for his own, more detailed defence.
Interesting... There is no way we can judge what actually happened; what aspect has not been looked into is Penguin's role..it is obvious that the company has asked Davidar to resign based on unproved charges? is the company right in doing so?
ReplyDeleteThat's for a fairly simple reason: I tried to contact people in Penguin Canada, and Bobbi Olsen (Lisa Rundle's lawyer) and didn't get a response. I don't know why you'd italicise the word "trauma"; I certainly didn't in my column.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, David's statement about the allegations was first made available to me on late Monday evening, after my column had gone to print.
As for personal bias, I've been very up front about my biases and the reasons for them. Given that I've been open about the longstanding friendship with Davidar, I think my column was balanced. And if there's one thing I've said consistently, in both the column and the blog, it's that I'd like to hear his side of the story--as we all will by next week.
I'm also not at all embarrassed that I would step up to defend an old colleague, in a personal post, on my blog by saying that everything I know of the man makes it very hard for me to believe that he would physically assault a woman, and that I would like to see more evidence before I come to a conclusion.
The Indian publishing industry's reaction to the sudden firing of someone in Davidar's position is also very much my concern as a columnist. If the reaction had been negative and hostile rather than shocked, I would have reported that. I quoted just one person, but I think the fact that the eight people I spoke to across four different publishing houses--not all of whom had worked with David--had similar reactions of shock, and all wanted to see more evidence speaks for itself.
That's really all I have to say until Davidar presents his case.
Ok, points taken and partially agreed with. I didn't italicise "trauma" and it shows up unemphasised on my screen. I put it in quotes because I was quoting you -- not because I doubt it was traumatic.
ReplyDelete"I'm also not at all embarrassed that I would step up to defend an old colleague, in a personal post, on my blog by saying that everything I know of the man makes it very hard for me to believe that he would physically assault a woman, and that I would like to see more evidence before I come to a conclusion."
ReplyDeleteGood for you. I admire anyone who stands up for someone they know, and who is in trouble. Most people are too prudent/gutless/unprincipled to take a stand.