'They are book journalists, not book reviewers'

It's just not in politics that things undergo sea change overnight. Narcopolis, which was available on discount initially, started adorning the most prominent spot in book stores soon after it was long listed for the Man Booker prize last year. Jeet Thayil, who was well-known in literary circles for more than two decades but became popular across the country only after the Booker tag, speaks to Nagarajan Chelliah on fiction and poem writing, their reviews and, yes, opium.

Edited excerpts of the interview
So, how's it a year after Narcopolis was long listed for the Man Booker?
It was a sea change. I remember, the first five reviews, one after the other, ripped it apart. They said it was shit... It's the worst book that has appeared in English.

I remember, that was our paper.
I know (laughs)... But I've to say that so many people shared that review that, in a way, it sold copies for my book. I wanted to quote that review at the back of a future edition. I wanted to quote that line... it's a fantastic line: 'The worst novel written in the English language anywhere'. I'm proud of writing that book. That's some achievement, you know. Because there have been a lot of books written in English. My thanks to the reviewer. I think he helped make the book popular.

So, what do you think about book review in India? Who are the great reviewers?
There are quite a few good reviewers actually. Nilanjana Roy, for one. Often, they are writers, and they give time to a book. They read other books by the same writer, they write thoughtful reviews. That's a different breed of reviewer from the kind of reviews you normally read in Indian newspapers. I don't call them book reviewers, let's call them book journalists. They never read the book. They read reviews of the book. They google the book, read other reviews and then their reviews always uncannily sound familiar. And then you realise why. It's always about the first three-four reviews.

But, then things changed after the long list
Things absolutely changed... Suddenly, all of the very same newspapers and magazines that said this was the shittiest book every written, were saying it was very good. It's unfortunate that we, as Indians, don't have confidence in our own writers, artists and musicians and we need to be told by some white guy that "oh that's a good writer, that's a good painter, that's a good musician", and then we believe it. Why can't we make up our own minds? Are we so backward? Do we have such a lack of confidence in our own writing, in our own art? It's really sad.

Especially at a time when Indian writers are making it big...
Yes. You just have to think of the number of great Indian poets. In fact a lot of Indian poets are even better than Indian novelists. They take more risks, they have better language, they have read more, they are more ambitious. (But) so many have languished, have been forgotten. Nobody knows about them. Because they were never reviewed and lauded in the West. It's a tragedy. Take a youngish poet like Vijay Nambisan… He wrote one book of poems, wrote a great essay for Penguin, did a translation from Sanskrit, has got a new book that nobody has thought of publishing. One of the great Indian poets… forgotten… I think it's a tragedy. (If) some guy would review him in the Guardian, everything would change.

How do you feel when some feel like let's see how's a book on opium by a former addict?
Well, that's OK. I don't agree with it, but if that's what people say it's okay. But I hope after they read the book, that's not the only thing they say about it. I hope they think it's a little more than just about addiction. Because that's not what it's about. The drugs are a kind of a peg... to hang a coat of many colours.

One of them being death
For sure, one of them being god, one of them being love… love vs sex. One of them being how death is not the end, about ghosts, about how they keep returning to the living, haunting the living...

Tell us about Mumbai... You were on and off Mumbai for a long time — almost the same period you were on and off drugs
For me, Bombay was always locked with drugs. Heroin, you know. For me, going to Bombay meant going to heroin. Which I why love this city so much. .. and still do (laughs)

And did you think how the city would take it when you wanted to write such a book?
Yes, I thought they might not be very pleased with it.

So, how is the city now taking to the book?
I see it in bookshops and I see it all over the place – that makes me very happy because it's a book about the city. The city is the main character in Narcopolis. It's a very loving portrait, but that doesn't mean there no ugliness in it, there is. It's ugly and it's beautiful. But all of that is with a real regard for this city and for what the city really is. And if a reader doesn't realise that this book is a work of love towards this city, I'm astonished. How can you not know that? A true work of love is a portrait that gives you the flaws as well as the perfections. That makes it beautiful. I think flaws make beauty, not perfection.

Now, what do you think of opium?
I still love it. I just wish there was one opium den still there and I would be there right now... I'm not joking. But unfortunately, they are all closed.

And the new drug culture?
It's no longer opiates, it's no longer downers, it's now uppers. They want instant. It's not about the body, it's the mind. So if you overdo yourself on the new drugs, you fry your brain. If you overdid yourself on the old drugs you destroyed your body. I don't know which is better... or worse.

Your next book is take off from Narcopolis?
Right now, it's stalled. I'm in the process of rethinking, reworking the whole thing. I thought it would be ready this year. It's not going to be even next year. Right now, I'm just leaving it. I want to rework the whole thing. At this point, it's not working for me. I am redoing it in a completely new way.

You had also given it a title. Are you changing that too?
The title was The Book of Chocolate Saints. Then it became Sex lives of the Saints. I don't know what it will be called now.

But what's chocolate saints?
Dark-skinned saints as opposed to the white-skinned saints that we think are saints. You think about it, (when you think of saints), they are always fair skinned. It's not true. There have been many dark-skinned saints. St Augustus, for instance.

Jeet Thayil on journalism:
I think it has gone down a certain road, where money is the main thing… where the main point of everything is to sell and it's a backstabbing, cut-throat business. It's just not in India, this is all over the world. But at least in other parts of the world, for every page of fluff, for every page of page 3, there's a page of substance. You will find something to read. It's rare that you find that, very few papers where you can actually spend an hour reading a newspaper. I remember those days, you could spend an hour reading a newspaper.

On news channels:
My only answer is I don't own a television. I had one, a good one, I gave it away.There's something about the pitch News channels, they all seem to speak in a very high pitch and it really bothers my inner ear… it makes me nervous. makes me feel neurotic. And being in a room with that pitch and they all speak in that pitch… I can understand them even if they speak at a normal volume… So, yeah, I gave my TV away. And I don't get newspapers in the house. And I don't have internet in the house. I have email on my phone and when I need to do work like attach a photo or send a document I go to an Internet cafe.

On following news:
No, I get news. I'm addicted to newspapers, that's my problem. When I find one somewhere, I read it. Every single stupid item, I read them. I come from that generation we are addicted to print, you know. Which is why if I have it in the house – my father gets 15 newspapers every day; when I go to visit them in Bangalore, all morning that's what I am doing – and it's a waste of time. I mean, at the end of it, what do you get? Just that day's news, which changes everyday. I guess you can't quote all of this, because you are in a newspaper. I find twitter as effective a way of gathering news as newspapers used to be. All the important headlines are there. I'm a great disappointment to my father. Because for him, news is like a religion. He thinks it's something sacred. I mean this is long argument we have been having about the usefulness of news. It's an ongoing discussion. A conversation, argument, whatever you want to call it. I don't think any side is going to win.