Talk:Richard Crasta

Request from Subject to Kindly Correct Distortions or Incorrect Information in the Wikipedia Article about me

This is an updated edit request for the article about me (yes, I am the subject of the article): My ethnicity cannot be "Mangalorean Catholic" because religion is a choice, not an ethnicity, and I belong to the linguistic group known as Konkanis, Konkani being an Indo-Aryan language. My ethnicity, therefore, is "Indian," like Aravind Adiga's. Please correct this, or drop the ethnicity label altogether, as you did with Jhumpa Lahiri. Also, if Jhumpa Lahiri is included in the list of Indian writers, so should I. The subject of my best-known and most published novel, "The Revised Kama Sutra", (More than 90 percent of the novel's action occurs on Indian soil.) Both my parents and our ancestors are Konkani-speaking Indians, I spent the most crucial first 26 years of my life in India, and kept returning for various periods, possibly for a total cumulative time of 5-6 years. Therefore, I am an Indian writer first, and an Indian American author, second (I later on settled down in the United States, but I still have a tremendous interest and emotional bond with my mother country, which I visit frequently, and was last published in India by HarperCollins India in 2010).

And this from the earlier request (please reconsider whatever has not yet been attended to):

1.“PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS”

First, the section on “Philosophical Views” seems to be inappropriate for a writer who has been described as “subversive.” (Just four words: subversive, nonconformist, humanist, skeptic, would be sufficient, if at all.) If I had a philosophy*, it would be humanism, but humanism is not a philosophy: its basic tenet is to be kind, tolerant, and compassionate towards fellow human beings, and towards all living things to the extent that it is feasible, and to the maximum extent possible allow them to live their lives as they choose, with maximum freedom.

As for the view on “karma”—it was the result of a 2005 or 2008 interview minutes after a book launch, when getting news coverage (for an independently publishing author whose books had been suppressed in the Indian press and establishment after my controversial third book, Impressing the Whites) was important for survival. Did I carefully consider my words? No, I was just offering quick, superficial sound-bites for sound-bite journalism (thinking on my feet is not my strength). So let me clarify: I don’t have a position on karma, at present, in 2016, and revoke any opinion given in an old interview.)

As for so-called “Christian values”—there is no common agreement on what they are, since both sharp and militarily aggressive capitalists as well as pacifist socialists claim to be Christian; and many of these values are preached by many religions, and don't require religious labels.

Then again, this sentence, “his work is described as anti-Christian”: how, by whom, and by what authority? Is Impressing the Whites (which is also my work) anti-Christian? Why not just think of it as "a subversive, anti-colonialist, anti-fascist, anti-repression and comic novel about India"? To me, the "anti-Christian" label is almost as weak as “anti-Universe” or “anti-Black Hole.” “Christian,” after all, is such an amorphous, ambiguous adjective, used and misused in so many different senses by so many different people so as to have become nearly meaningless. Whereas anti-war, anti-violence, anti-injustice, anti-repression, anti-racist, anti-chauvinist, pro-compassion, pro-human-freedom (including freedom of expression), pro-Planet: these are the most important terms in describing what I stand for, now. These are virtually the only labels I would accept, despite being shy of labels.

So, when you assign a philosophy and certain views to me, a writer of 12+ books, based on my first book, a novel, I feel I am being pigeonholed. Not only am I, in principle, against pigeonholing humans, but my work as a whole is too diverse, messy, and contradictory to fit into any pigeonhole.

My “work” is not just one novel, it is around twelve published books (a few available only as downloads from my website), twenty essays, and around twelve other books-in-progress (even the yet-to-be-published works-in-progress are still my work, and reflect the present me more than what I wrote or said to an interviewer 10-15 years earlier).

Finally, the entire sentence: “Although sometimes his work is described as anti-Christian, he admits that his deep principles are actually Christian.” I was trying to refute the anti-Christian label that had been applied to me until then by Wikipedia, because I don't wish to be claimed by any camp (I belong to no camps whatsoever, am totally independent). My novel is actually the humorous story of a boy growing up in India with an American Dream, and The Lonely Planet Guide to India describes it as “an irreverent guide to growing up in India … lasting insight into the local life of Mangalore and other South Indian cities.”[1] So I responded with “My deep principles are actually Christian.” [Which statement, on careful consideration, I disown.]

Solution: Please delete the entire section on philosophical views. It is inappropriate for a short article about me, just as any attempt to describe "the philosophy of Ulysses, by James Joyce" in two paragraphs would be somewhat diminishing of the novel. How about, instead, that a huge number of critics have described the novel as "funny," "hilarious," or "very, very funny"? See also reviews by The Hindu which seems to be more on target on the anti-colonialism angle, or India Abroad

And, one more thing: if there is a point that The Revised Kama Sutra makes, it's not so much about religion as about sexual repression and hypocrisy in modern India and its human cost--a point that is still relevant today, despite a revolution in information and easy availability of porn on the Net.

2. THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM TOP (INTRODUCTORY SECTION)

For reasons already mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this essay/appeal, I would rather that the whole “anti-Christian” discussion be left out of the third paragraph: the sentence “Although he considers himself … remain with him” is better deleted entirely.

As for my nationality, please feel free to quote The Revised Kama Sutra (or not—but if so, clearly mentioning that it is from the novel): “I was a writer: that was my religion, that was my nationality.” Yes, I have a great love for the land of my birth, India, and am nostalgic for it, but I believe human beings have come to a stage where nationalism is often allied to racism, intolerance, chauvinism, and aggression, and is therefore dangerous to humanity as a whole, and must therefore be sacrificed in favour of loyalty to and love for humanity.

3. EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION:

--Last sentence of second paragraph: “too poor to afford clean white paper.” This is an example of my silly, occasionally self-deprecating humor; the absence of white paper cannot be considered as a strong reason not to continue writing, and would not have stopped me, had I a burning desire to complete a book at that time. That is one humorous line in an article that is otherwise serious; thus, might give a false picture to readers who haven’t yet read me, unless you also include ten other comic quotes from my works (which are more important and carefully considered than my interviews).

--Third paragraph, middle: Please delete: “He later served in the IAS for 13 years.” It's factually incorrect. The position of “Special Deputy Commissioner (Development), Shimoga” was my last-but-one job in the IAS lasting till January 1983, when I went on leave to the U.S. for five years till January 1988, when I worked for 4 months as Joint Director of Industries (SSI), Karnataka. From May 1988 onwards, I was on extraordinary leave while living with my family in the U.S., and in 1993, I resigned. And, by the way, my total time actually working in the IAS was 56 months--or less than five years.

4. FIRST PARAGRAPH, second sentence:

I consider The Killing of an Author to be one of my three most important works: I have described it as forming, along with The Revised Kama Sutra and Impressing the Whites, my “Freedom Trilogy.” If you’re going to mention my other works, I think The Killing of an Author (a publishing and literary autobiography and critique of publishing) absolutely deserves mention right in that second sentence.

5. LIST OF WORKS:

A few of my recently published works have been unpublished for review and editing, and may be re-launched within the next 3-6 months. At present, if my works after The Killing of an Author (2008) are going to be listed, then perhaps more than one title needs to be listed. For the present, I leave that to your discretion. The other changes I have requested are important.

Thank you.

[1] https://books.google.com.kh/books?id=8KnLFpjEHpUC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=Revised+Kama+Sutra+lonely+planet+guide+to+south+INdia&source=bl&ots=fIVacTJqCK&sig=KQ83XpGaQrIv1nAEWwTF21qTi5o&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Revised%20Kama%20Sutra%20lonely%20planet%20guide%20to%20south%20INdia&f=false

Richardjcrasta (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Richard Crasta, 2 April 2016

Hi there. The request is now quite outdated, and the article has obviously changed, so most of the edits cannot be implemented. I have added a BLP sources section template to the Philosophy section, so that involved editors may look for additional references to the claims that they've made. Regards, VB00 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)