I link to this article only to demonstrate just how bad the press Roy is getting even from the "liberal" media. The Guardian, perhaps the most overrated paper in the Anglophone world, has managed the impossible: They've produced a boring article about Arundhati Roy. Such feats as these are beyond the abilities of lesser publications! Steve Ross, the philistine who wrote the piece, goes on and on (and on and on) about a second novel. Then he tabloids into her sex life and her contentious relationship with her mother. Then the article abruptly ends, there being no pillows left to fluff.
This is typical of the false-flag journalism so indispensable to ruling class propaganda. The author presents himself as amenable to Roy, but denies her a forum to express her views preferring gossip instead. He isn't overtly hostile, but nevertheless distances himself from his subject by calling her Manichean and absolutist, a damning charge for which I can see no basis. Manichean implies a reluctance or inability to detect and/or consider subtlety or nuance, I can scarcely call to mind anyone to whom this epithet is less applicable. He cites Walking with Comrades, perhaps he should have read it.
Roy may be the best essayist/speaker in English today, and she's written a superb piece about the Maoists for which she subsequently became a political prisoner (which Ross doesn't mention, apparently not seeing it as important as her mother's bird calls), yet the author's only approach to the topic is a captious question about Roy's support of the Maoists' violence, a stance which will surely not endear her to the Guardian's readership. He calls her brilliant, but paints her as a fanatic, thus discrediting her and those immensely brave people fighting imperialism in the Indian forest about whom she's written so perspicaciously.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/05/arundhati-roy-keep-destabilised-danger?CMP=twt_iph
