On Detective Fiction, Favourite Characters and First Novels

A Conversation with Aditya Sudarshan

Aditya Sudarshan, a close friend, fellow philosopher, Emerson fan, Sachin-worshipper, comedian and slime is an ace-storyteller. Although he's known to write in the horror and sci-fi genres, his first novel, A Nice Quiet Holiday is a thoughtful murder mystery set amidst the quaint hills of Bhairavgarh. It is a wonderful little novel bursting with unconventional ideas and and his trademark biting jibes. When I asked him about his book, he said, "Macha, I just read the advance copy. Its unputdownable." The book is unputdownable. I agree.

I had a broken email conversation with him on his book, on writing, and on his life in general.

Firstly, congrats! I absolutely enjoyed the book.

Thanks. I'm really glad you did.


I was told that holding that advance copy of your first book in your hand is a big step, elation-wise and growing-up-wise. Does it actually mean that much? Or does that moment happen when you finish it? Or when it finds a publisher?

They are all three nice moments, but the sharpest thrill is getting an offer from a publisher.

Finishing the novel is very satisfying, but you know you're going to finish it for a while before you do, so the happiness is more diffused. It gives you a lot of confidence though, so for that reason I'd say it's probably the most important moment. If you've written a novel, even if it's just lying on your computer, you're already a writer.

But getting an offer happens all at once, so it is a bigger thrill. Realizing that some stranger is willing to back your writing with their time and money is a good feeling.

Then you get to reading the contract and negotiating, and by the time the whole process of editing and production is over you're already very aware that publishing is a business, and there are many writers and many novels that sink without a trace. So by the time you get the advance copy of your novel, a large part of your mind is already worrying about how it will do. It's still nice to see it of course, but not an unalloyed pleasure.


When did you realise that you could actually write for a living? When did you start and finish this novel?

Answering the second part first, I started this novel in about February 2007 and finished it by about June that year. I got the contract for it almost a year later, in April 2008. (In the meantime I dilly-dallied about sending it to publishers, and plus they all take months to respond).

I didn't think clearly about whether I could write for a living until some time after I finished the novel. While I was working I was writing occasional short stories, and reading biographies of authors. It was a sort of gradual realization, that I understand how fiction writing is done, and that this is where my talent lies. Then I got the idea for a second novel, and wanted to write that. So at that stage I made a decision to focus full-time on writing.

But I still don't know whether I can make a living from writing. That depends on how my career goes.
You quit your job as a litigator in Delhi for this. How hard was that to do? Any opposition from people around you?

It wasn't hard ultimately, because by the time I quit I was quite clear that I wanted to give writing a full-blow shot. Trial litigation is a profession where you pretty much start at the bottom and work your way upwards, so it wasn't as though I was losing a great salary either.

Family was surprised, but not opposed. I think their attitude was, and is, let's wait and see how it goes (which I think is a fair attitude).

Another interesting thing about you is that unlike most new Indian writers, you have almost no web presence - you don't have a blog, you don't contribute to one, (as far as I know) you don't have a Facebook/ Orkut account. Is this a disadvantage? For instance, many of The Compulsive Confessor's readers would have bought her book, and many of Amit Varma's will buy it just because they read India Uncut.

I don't think I have no web presence. Some of my old short stories are on the net, like at The Scientific Indian's website. So people can get a sense of how I write by searching online. (And they can get a sense of how I write fiction, which blog posts don't always give you) As you say, I don't have a blog which means that I don't have pre-existing readers. That is obviously a disadvantage. But there isn't much I can do about it, because I don't think I could sustain an interesting blog (like you have done). (interviewer blushes at the compliment)

I'm not on Facebook or Orkut, because personally I find email and chatting is fine for keeping in touch with people. By the way, for readers who want to write in, my email is aditya.sudarshan@gmail.com. (he means women who have imagined him as this hot item)

The blurb portrays it as a typical murder mystery. But your novel is more than that. This is a question I'm sure you will get asked often - why did you choose to write in a fairly traditional murder mystery structure? (murder at a gathering, closed group of suspects, a 'detective', his assistant, and a long explanatory speech.) Is it an experiment - to deal with larger issues through a murder mystery? Or am I reading too much into your novel?

I really like and respect detective stories. Detective stories are full of mystery and therefore full of revelation- which means they better have something worth revealing. I think, almost more than any other story-telling device, the device of a detective story forces the author to have something to say. What I mean is: a bad book, that has nothing really to say, and no real ideas and insights, can pull the wool over the reader's eyes in almost any other garb. But if it is cast in the structure of a mystery novel, everyone will see at once that it's a failure. Maybe that's one reason why detective stories get derided more than others- not because there's anything wrong with the genre, but because a bad detective story has nowhere to hide.

I started this novel with the sense that I had something to say. And then, since my view is that detective stories lend themselves very well to thoughts and ideas, I chose that genre. The traditional structure you mentioned is a very natural and powerful structure- and that's why I agree that it has become a cliché. But I think the way to overcome a cliché is, not to be afraid of it, but to go at it as though it's the first time it's ever being employed. (Which, for me as a writer, it was.) Then what happens is that even though on an intellectual level the reader sees that this structure is not new, it feels new to him, because it's been written afresh and with enthusiasm.

This is not to say that the traditional structure can't be altered and re-worked. It can be.

Isn't that true of any novel? Most novels (or even films, for that matter) that aren't backed by ideas have nowhere to hide.

It's like this. When you frame a mystery you are making it very clear that some secret exists. That's what makes mysteries gripping. So when, finally, you reveal the secret, if it is unsatisfactory then everyone notices- because everyone was looking. On the other hand if you are not so upfront about having something to reveal, then, because you haven't focussed the reader's attention, he or she might not notice that you never said much after all.

Here is an analogy: If I'm on stage performing, everyone is looking. So every slip-up will be spotted more easily. But suppose I'm performing in the background (like musicians at a restaurant), then because the audience's attention is more diffused, there's a higher chance they'll overlook my error. They might feel: something was wrong with that experience, but I'm not sure exactly what. Maybe it was the food or the service.

Whereas really it was the music- so the musician got away with his mistake.

Your point on cliches: while Jab We Met (excuse the crassness of this example) was a fairly cliched story, the freshness worked in its favour. But cliches tend to not be taken seriously, and are constantly judged against their predecessors.

Yes, but there's nothing to fear in these judgments or comparisons. It's natural to compare stories of a similar genre. In fact it's natural to compare stories regardless of genre because ultimately all stories deal with the same fundamental material. So I think if a story is fresh and powerful, it deserves recognition as something new. After all, the essence of a cliché is its dryness. Take that away and it's not a cliché at all.

The attitudes of small town masses towards 'city' influences forms a key element of your book..

Yes. I think conflicts of sensibilities are all around us, all the time, in a country like India. For example, this latest 'pub culture' furore. I guess like many people, I'm interested in getting to grips with these problems. So that's why, in this novel, I set up one such situation- a small town's moral condemnation of the work of AIDS activists.

And my feeling is that when thinking through these issues, we usually tend to be too crude. They are always cast as 'liberal' versus 'conservative', or 'progressive' versus 'traditional' (or even 'young' versus 'old'). So then, depending on whether you are young and living in a metro, or old and living elsewhere, you pick your side. That doesn't help solve the debate. It's also a bit silly- as though youth is superior to age, or vice versa!

So in my novel, I wanted to present a clear-headed way of thinking that isn't prejudiced one way or the other. A sort of 'forward' thinking,that doesn't get bogged down in 'left' or 'right'.

The character who engaged me the most was the Judge. How much of the Judge's opinions are actually yours? Is it hard for a writer to disassociate himself from his favourite character?

I would say, whenever the Judge (or any other character) offers a serious opinion (as opposed to a light-hearted or moody opinion) and that is not disproved by anything else in the story, then I as the author have supported it.

That's a very good question, about a writer's treatment of his or her favourite character. I think it is a little tricky. You have to make sure the character is not being given an easy ride just because you want him to 'win.' On the other hand you also have to be open about the fact that you are on his side. So on the one hand the danger is of creating a God-like character who is never wrong or embarrassed or defeated as all real people are. On the other hand, if you over-compensate and perversely make the character suffer, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

So it is tricky, but being aware of this problem is half the battle won. Then you can try and correct yourself when you find you are going wrong.

A writer's first novel is often his/her most personal. That doesn't seem to be the case with you. (Is your life that uninteresting? Could you update us on your love life?)

Thanks Mami. But I certainly do use my own experiences for writing material. Not for the essential plot elements, but for details of setting, bits of conversation, and for characters. I think the extent to which imagination borrows from experience varies from writer to writer. Many writers are more personal than me, but many are also less. I guess that's just the way it is.
In re: the other questions, well there is nothing to report, so...
***

Photograph Courtesy: Arun Sri Kumar (A.X.)