A dedicated anticommunist, the americans were vulnerable to phrases such as the numerology of western civilizations. People see that peculiar capital of liberalism , a dogma which was intended to guarantee economic became the ideology of corporate structures of capitalism. Used by them to prevent a proper politicalcontrol of their power. It was also alert to the fundamental screen that went inside capitalism and liberal democracy that gradually gathered around the world and every society chose ultimately just as britain and theUnited States did. Of course we would not have participated at the blind fanatics who made the cold war so treacherous without offending historycenter stage , and freemarket localizers had grown more complex and charitable and help unravel large parts of asia, africa and western america to foster chaos in their ownsocieties. Thank you for reading from. Another way to talk about blind fanatics and the book publishes a range of people who might fit thatdescription. Can you give us a sense of what leadership it is that youre talking about here . I think when ronald need more rights published this particular excerpt in the late 50s he was also responding to people who were at that point. And the idea that communists have to be used to threaten american achievements includingdemocracy and capitalism. And he was very much questioning the notion, highly contingent achievements that the United States could be spread in different parts ofthe world. The phrase is actually quite useful to describe a very broad tendency. Think about how the scholarship in the earliest part of the 20th century of british historians assuming that the world is going to converge on the modern supply by britain and to lesser extent theUnited States. Of course, this also becomes much much stronger when there is absolutely no ideological opposition whatsoever. And theres a kind of madness in the air people assuming that now they have this opportunity to completely remake the world in all kinds of numerous notions of the newworld order. And the flat world, and on close examination theres these notions but they become the default victim of the 90s and 2000 until the financial crisis. The 1950s arrived not so glam anymore. I think in that sense that can be qualified a little bit. Theyre really truly become fanatics of a pretty balanced sort. Think about the iraq war as the kind of blood he chaos, it creates large parts of asia and africa so were looking at very dangerous fanatics in thatcontext. I think people who follow the category would be someone like david guitar, people seem to be within, their expressing ideas in many ways but posting that its still trying to be civil and to be accepted in that culture whereas your third essay in this book really expresses someshocking ideas very bluntly. I was amazed going back to reading that piece that he would say some of the things he said. It was very interesting, this is a review for the time in many of these areas but these ideas like his which you now find correctly so offensive were widelyaccepted. They asked them to make a documentary also showing the unitedstates. He was writing for the Financial Times, the new york review of books and practically every prestigious area of america and there to simply no challenge whatsoever coming to him from liberals writing articles. There were obviously academics who were saying what is this nonsense about British Empire being this benign benediction. But whats really interesting about this is just how so many of these individuals you mentioned work speaking but theres an atmosphere and a sort of this particular anglicized group constituted by people who are ivy league or that have made their victory through washington dc , london, new york think tanks, various publications or articles who really in a way seem to have kind of created a consensus. So even if theyre not speaking the language they assume that the world was going to be read and david gallant is an interesting figure in the Financial Times that became essentially. [inaudible] and they stopped competing altogether which were going to sue the far right and starting with the speechwriter, again staying within the center but actually protecting it from all kinds of Political Tendencies so meanwhile its in its most fundamental state refers people across that anglican American Group who are not at a basis for aggression as someone like this but nevertheless exercises a great legal authority. Is for a group of people who do not present themselves asradicals , even though many of the competitions they put forward are quite strange in some cases, they always i think its said they identify as liberals and i wonder what to clarify, what form youre taking a mat here because it can take many forms. You talk about liberalism that keeps us unrelated markets, is that kind of the summation of what were talking about in this incarnation . Certainly the incarnation of liberalism is neoliberalism that various societies have suffered from in the last two, three decades but i think from a historical view if you look at the economies which i write about in bland fanatics, talking starting off with capitalism and free trade, but always with this huge military power behind these ideals, so that is one particular situation that i was interested in and thats something i look to again and again in the book because this is something that is actually working in alliance with a tremendous military and political and diplomatic power and then of course you know its not an accident that the economist comes a great cheerleader of american liberalism and find a new career for itself in the 1980s and in many ways it becomes an american headquarters. So i think in that sense the book that i was reviewing is medicating in a way that the magazines often are used to, at some point they start to talk about how we need to have a social system and whats really interesting is how liberalism comes this elite everywhere. And this is something that the elites want because it certainly advances their interests but its also something that allows them to be progressive. And essentially in tune with it. So even as the extreme far right aims at these results like the overthrow which they exported of the iraq war which the economist also supported by liberalism becomes essentially. [inaudible] theres a modern prestige of liberalism that is joined with aplomb and of course you have this very conscious to create this Prestigious International dialogue, where the relevant people are recruited, like john locke and john hobbs and various people that italk about. So this is something i want to say you have people claiming to represent liberalism or claiming to advance liberal ideas make alliances with all kinds of different political movements , individuals, organizations and tendencies. Part of your book i think youre editing is about the lofty ideals and the rhetoric and then the mismatch to those ideals and the reality of those people, can you talk about that and what you think are the intent of liberalism . I think i should say and i say this in the introduction that what really in many ways is unnerving was an indian experience, and experience of indian reality especially, there isnt a very strong liberal tendency in india but what exists seems to be secular and at the same time its very deeply allied and connected to the ordered establishment, which has absolutely no time for secularism or the oldfashioned kind of liberalism but in the past, when liberal particularly in india were closely connected to religious power and they had this vision of kashmir for instance which as many of you know is disputed territory, right from the beginning but there very much about india and happy progressive notions that we are advancing democracy, all the things you can think about and i assumed they were right and i internalized those notions so then i realized that secularism and that civilization actually, there is a military occupation going on in the cashmere. So that was really my education was a sort of shocking disconnect between very highflown, highminded rhetoric about superior morality and a superior set of ideas and then when you see itworking on the ground , you see violence, suffering, despair and this is been the experience of many peopleover the last few decades. The solace of prosperity, Economic Growth and also meritocracy. And whatever realities that this kind of rhetoricand this promise. So i think for that reason theres this huge reservoir of disaffection and a kind of backlash, a kind of violent backlash against anyone who calls themselves or can be plausibly defined as a liberal because the world has become so tainted with a certain kind of compromise, a certain kind of hypocrisy that im reminded of actually leave mortimer who is a very famous interview at the times in the 19th century where she said please dont call me liberal, its a dirty word in africa and at actually south african radical group. Liberals are too complicit in the regime there so this is not something i want to use for myself. And for many people, but word has become so tainted and it contains for them a set of ideals that we should highly advanced and that we should try to realize, that other liberals are the rightway to advance those ideals. Looking at excavating that history again, i think because the view of liberalism is that this is securing individual rights and that is available to everyone, and yet a recurring theme in these essays is that through hundreds of years liberalism has been tied up with hierarchy and materialism and violence and its a system that may be is inexperienced in the colonizing countries now in the last several years but its the experience overwhelmingly of most people for a long time. So you talk in the book about the processes we are observing now as essentially interior liberalism coming home but what do you mean by that phrase . What are the processes or the problems with cominghome . I think we need to be much more aware of these problems if we are able to diagnose them earlier than we had started to. The reason that we did not embark on this in different ways, even from the more lets say sensible right, is because liberalism during the cold war became this entrenched ideology. I remember the book reviews written by the times. [inaudible] which is kind of a unified theme that ties all these Different Things together but what im really critiquing is a kind of cold war liberalism that became dominant in mainstream journalism and definitely in mainstream academia claiming that its a sort of intellectual tradition back in the 1950s and obviously in contrast to communism and then of course having defeated fascism liberalism looked like the best game in town and even today people would say if you do away with liberalism what are you going to mess with but those were the rules back then that you either had this version of liberalism or you had terrorism all the time like stalin and the soviet union and mouse a song, really hiding these higher bouts of liberalism is a complicated history and ways in which liberal practices were compromised by association with judaism from the 1950s onward so the idea that liberalism has become a workable ideology for a United States that more and more people are becoming aware of the right, they have a civilized momentstarting in the 1950s and 60s. Theres something deeply delusional about thosenotions. When you think of someone back in the 50s like john roll even in the 60s, he argued a lot liberalliberty and justice. Where are the nonright people in that division, where are the africanamericans, where are the countries that are beginning to fight, not to fight for but achieve these sovereignty and independence. So what were trying to say is that liberalism which weve entrenched in which has been banging the drum for in different platforms was an error and intellectually capable of acknowledging these new realities that emerge right after the end of the Second World War with colonization, with the civilized movement, with so many different surroundings. Its made by cold war liberalism and not to mention the fact that inequality starts to become aproblem from the 1970s onward. And now of course we have various cause various demagogues to emerge but what were pointing to is a deep bureaucracy of this framework that weve been carrying a long time that developed to the communist threats from cold war and basically at this point doesnt seem to give us any answer except to say after me, the deluge. And that was always the alternative that was being offered during the cold war. Trying to get to the link between some of the politicians in liberalism and the way theyve been enabled by empire. It seems and correct me if im wrong but you seem to be saying in the First World War that the ability western europeanshave to acquire , to go in several countries and colonize other countries essentially enables that and enables liberalism to foster in their home countries until the First World War and that link, that the original link between liberalism and empire. It is actually not something i can claim for myself. This is something anticolonial capitalists aptly pointed out from the earlier 20th century on but even before the First World War there was a fear that individual liberty of the kind available to at least some people in england at that point, even that was a common threat. It was either in the 1920s that all these rights that are available to many people, all these democratic rights would be in danger once asia becomes free and becomes a rifle and competitor to these economies because as long as they can exploit these nations, as long as they dominateand subjugate these countries , those little liberties that theyre able to secure a small part of their population would be in danger. Thats why i think of different economic not models, we need to think of a different way of viewing the world, not just becoming politically respectful of the environment. Thats part of the economic critique is these models that have made you prosperous have made you somewhat democratic are not sustainable and you can see it because we can see the violence that it inflicts on different parts of the world. And that at some point will come home when you can no longer expect those societies in thesame way youre doing right now. Thing im trying to understand and clarify why liberalism leads to the exploitation, is the idea that you have a society where everyone is free to compete with each other, is it going to work out for some people that it was a kind of escape valve . How does that work . That why should liberalism lead to. Why should it lead someone that needs to be exploited because i think that those people who are proponents of liberalism or would like to make arguments in defense of the system would not automatically assume that liberalism means someones going to be exploited. What the mechanism there . Its silly because liberalism works within the framework of a capitalist economy which is centered on exploitation and of course in the 19th century it was also in a way Carry Forward by expansion, offering markets in the world and the people bombarding them, sending in economies open up their markets so liberalism this idea of expansion or Economic Growth, freedom , these are fundamentally from the beginning in practice when they started to be drawn into practice. They were always connected with this capitalist economy which was benefiting, which was flourishing and advancing because it was based on exploitation in the first instance and even after the establishment of a state degree, different forms of false labor. Not to mention largescale disposition so it took an experienced form could argue that theres a moment where if you really think it was an intellectual role of liberalism, but even there and you would find that actually yes, there would be sacred in the country so its a very hard mentality something that we try to argue in this book. The history of liberalism and imperialism and slaveryand thats what makes it so problematic. And its peculiarly unsuited for our democratic age. We are getting into a democratic revolution but the problems that so many are probably not aware, from elite that has seen provisions of power long time and find to share those privileges with more people. That is a point i think people like gandhi were making back in early 20th century, that this would become more and more visible, the fact that youre in economy, political structure, political system is based upon violence and exploitation and that right now it clear to us in the colonies that at some point people themselves in your own countries more and more of them are going to realize this is what the whole system is about. This is why anyways i feel like we did great damage to ourselves but not listening to that particular tradition, the anticolonialism thought which began in that concentric. So much of what i said draws from the fact that i write in periodicals were sometimes you cant even mention certain people because when you find the proper footnote for them, theres infrastructure, the way the industry works, yet systems of knowledge, systems in certn ways of citing people and putting together scholarly editions, and so much of the stuff is just out there. Its not being put together in the way scholarship works in britain and america. At the same time theres a lot of resistance to including that stuff, because why do we need that . We are doing fine right now with cold war liberalism and various, variations of which. Its funny the story you told about the realization you have when youre looking at the situation in kashmir with the echoes the comet that you quote where he still basically the same thing that you realize when hes talking to people use liberalism is a rich people, we dont want anything to do with the. Thats in the 1960s. One thing to talk about in this book is there are several events that uses basically delaying this reckoning. One is the idea that we reach the end of history but then when it becomes clear that actual things are not working out, the way we thought they were wood isnt so great. You have 9 11 and the election of obama. It seems almost any event could be used to justify delaying the reckoning with what isnt working. And i think if you have this massive intersexual industries that grew up during the cold war, that something i keep saying we need updated the kind of books that were written, some of them in the 60s and 70s, just how and intelligence devoted to advancing certain american ideas. Being in america as a former inn the 50s and 60s observed this very closely. Some of the anticommunist expatriates and exiles from europe when the came to america really shocked to see this industry slowly coming into being. Foundations come even magazines spewing the same line. The atmosphere of intellectual conformity was so oppressive. We havent really broken free of that in so many ways, that we are still potentially in that same world intellectually that we havent really started to think about a whole range of things. And that one recent because extremely lucrative, profitable to stay within those intellectual systems. Defense is not going to be rewarded. You will end up running a small circulation leftwing magazine. [laughing] that is not a faith that many people want to entertain. Lots of people give written about and critiqued our people essentially agree with everything the u. S. Government was doing with policy but also who opposed as being contrarian. People like Christopher Hitchens and even Niall Ferguson who have a kind of rhetoric that implies there some out bad boys who were outside of the establishment but their views are very similar to those that george bush. Absolutely. The reason why we dont talk about these things in public or the reason why you are not more articles, more, because who will write them and who will publish them and what exactly . The nation what is it and then review of books might do that but where else we find sustained critiques of some of these individuals and these tendencies . Its a huge problem that we havent interrogated so much of the stuff. We have given intellectual authority, moral authority to so many racketeers, people working for think tanks funded by saudi arabia or some dubious organization and then we look respectfully at the papers they produce. Look at some of these people who are up and for the New York Times. One moment boosting [inaudible] the next moment the man murders a journalist and theres simply no accountability whatsoever. Go on and on committing one atrocity after another. They are still entrenched in coalitions of authority. It so easy to put at politicians. They only have four years. Trump might be voted out what is he going to do with the Donald Trumps of the intellectual world . It such a long time. Something that really intrigued me you mention in your piece on Tanehisi Coates with the appearance of the atlantic kind of reinventing itself and the laundry of repetitions of people like david frum four max boot. What you think is going on there . You put a very eloquently when you said people who are making sensible arguments for war in these prestigious magazines but ten years earlier now presenting themselves as allies and struggle for racial justice. They are the same people at adult observed in the real significant change in their ideologies. None are just people who said i agree with everything. What do you think that is . What i was saying early was if you have no accountability whatsoever, if people are not faulted for making catastrophic intellectual errors, errors that actually lead to cause wholesale destruction of human life, which is a case, many of the intellectuals who supported these horrible wars in the middle east and indeed various interventions elsewhere. But who is holding these people accountable . Its the same people running these magazines, the same sponsors, the same financiers. You could write as many articles as you want in the Small Association magazines, but that was very limited effects and this of course would you publish books that would be various ideological policeman release on your books. What is your solution and so on and so forth. What happens after liberalism . We are all doomed if we do away with liberalism. Its very difficult to create, people of course are trying, just in the last few years or he been so many new magazines especial in the United States. America is millions of miles ahead of britain and this regard with the tradition of small magazines and radical magazines. So many magazines have come up, magazines have reinvented themselves like back to its old insurgent self. I think that is where using critiques are happening, but i dont know how much influence and authority they exercise in the large intellectual conscience. Its still very much a minority voice at this point where as the other people, they have the money, the networks, the sugar daddies, to have the big sponsors. I have one question at that have to go to the questions from the audience because i am realizing it is nearly time. Going back to what you said about when your books are published you had the ideological review of policeman who view them. One can critique i noticed people make frequently about books like yours or articles like yours, draw attention to the discontent of liberalism, you are denounced as someone who is illiberal. I want to clarify what you think about that, because you do talk in the book about trying to fill the promise of liberalism rather than discarding it. What is your relation to liberalism in that sense . In that sense that tragic that trajectory of the group is very instructive. Someone who is commonly regarded as a great exponential liberalism but actually do at the end of his life, much of his light of his life he was a socialist. He realized only a socialist society can realize those ideas that he started out with. Growing up in a place like india, this is an experience i share with many people, that was the horizon of hope and a set of ideas very directly related to securing justice, dignity, rights for large larger largers of people, not just small groups or small elite and elite privileged by capitalist economy but large section of the population. Liberalism, the ideas of liberalism, individual autonomy, tolerance, these are wonderful ideas. By the way they also exist in various other philosophical tradition and we should all be advancing them. But at this moment what are a set of ideas that are best to advance them is actually socialism. Only a a socialist society that can realize those ideas. So what you are saying is you need the formal equality but you also need economic equality and all other forms, be arrived at through socialism. But the book itself, i wouldnt say you are a socialist critic of these people, which you . Youre not approaching them in that way. I think if you look at the black forms of the venues where these essays were originally published, those are not strictly speaking left publications, the New York Times or the guardian or the new yorker. I am engaged in a very different kind of discourse altogether, where im essentially within the strong wars of liberalism i am trying to prateek them critiques them. Its a kind of way of portraying people to rethink their cherished notions and ideas using figures that they cannot easily object you, you know . Thats interesting. I worked at the new york review of books, socialism wasnt a particularly welcome word when i worked there. Do you ever feel like you were smuggling these ideas in . Because i think if you have a good lead, like ukraine some of your pieces of the great gatsby, a very valued, longtime contributor to the reviews, that giving the little readers of the publications something they recognize and respect, but then make it like a socialist argument in by the back door. This is the style of work. This is that most of his work. If i would start quoting a chinese writer, objections might ive had several expenses of that by the way. Someday im going to write about them, these editorial exchanges were certain prejudices, certain extreme prejudices become shockingly clear and youre left aghast at just a deep the prejudices are. Quoting some from china and the sun as questions about mao zedong, the cultural revolution come all these old world prejudices occur. Its much easier, much less risky to quote someone like milosz or some of these kind of anticommunist cold war icons as opposed to an indonesian writer the within closely examine and interrogated. Its just not i think it is getting better, the last five years people are little more accepting. Absolutely. This is why i cannot understand how people can complain about cancel culture. I cant tell you how much open, how much more tolerance these magazines have become, active account of discourse of various other figures. Previously they would not have posted at all. The kind of inflection freedom i see today has been really missing, absent for much of my writing life, and i started writing in the mid90s. My experience is exact opposite is that i have never seen more intellectual freedom than exists today. So this notion people are being stifled and not allowed to say certain things, this is completely alien to me. People used to say horribly objectionable things in the past and how like British Empire was a really wonderful thing. They havent openly challenged today, at a think they shouldve been childs a long time ago. It has taken far too long for voices to be raised against them. Im sure some people feel very threatened by that and feel they are being stifled and they can simply no longer talk about black people or women in the same way they used to. They would like to have the freedom to express their views without ever being challenged or engage in debate. I realize ive gone over time but there are several people who have really good question for you some going to ask them anyway and see if we can have five minutes rick this question is from will you ever write a book laying at positions looking articles by gandhi and others in the purchasing nonviolence is the only universal ideology you can think of that makes sense. You self diagnose whats wrong with the modern world but i think i and many others long for efficient of what we might aspire to. I dont know i would write a book click that because i think of myself really as a writer. Ive spent a lot of time critiquing other writers of other intellectuals who presume to offer solutions that can be universally applied. It would be a big mistake on my part to then start doing exactly the same thing and offering solutions, offering prescriptions. I really strongly feel that whatever prescriptions we have, we can look for to in the future, need to come out of lived experiences of social, economic realities, that this notion that the intellectual is going to devise a particular solution that itself is something we need to be suspicious of. I really think of myself, my primary role as that of a critic, as a social critic. I am not some of his going to be devising manifestoes for the noncommunist world war for the unfree world. Okay. Next question. Sometimes you mention some liberal ideas but with realizing for the liberals are unable to realize them. What others ideals and do his best to see them through . Youre kind of already answered part of that but thats the question. Of course i think i said that. Notions of individual freedom and tolerance, noninterference, positive liberty come negative liberty come all of these are wonderfully admirable notions. The problem is how do we realize these notions working with one set of ideas and better those ideas are also acceptable and indeed welcomed by a large majority of the public. I think thats where liberals need to be much more modest and humble and take more about democracy and more about socialism. Next question is from someone called william marks. I dont know if thats a pseudonym or real name. Last question, could you talk about your attitude to the enlightenment . On the one hand, your justifiably skeptical yet you also seem to draw on any idea of recognizing multiethnic europe as a as a fact. His physical come immutable fact been needs a more inclusive identity wrote to the peaceful presence and supernatural feature rather than from his boot initially nationalistic and imperialist past. The enlightenment of course is a hugely important juncture but what im really pushing against much of what ive written is is in person thatse only source of wisdom left in this world. You have this kind of enlightenment industry on one hand, Steven Pinker produces these massive tones arguing that life has never been better and its all because of the enlightenment and its all going to get better and better all the time. Thats a wonderful notion but also a more siskind notion whih is about certain people in western europe and america in the late 18th and 19th century devised these wonderful ideas that we should all still be working hard to realize those ideas. I really think we should be thinking a little bit more about what people in india, for instance, or china taught, not just been but in the past and also we should think about what people elsewhere thought, not just the 18th or 19th century. What im saying is the enlightenment doesnt have a monopoly on wisdom. We have given it the monopoly because were all in many ways products of it, but i think theres a lot of scope for rethinking and especially when you look at some of these figures and what they have to say, what they were actually thinking about large part of the worlds population, including nonwhite people, thinking that dark skin is a sure sign of superiority. Theres a lot of product but problematic stuff is said by some of these sages, some of these great icons of the enlightenment. So the notion that a perfect guides for a just and Humane Society is somewhat misplaced. Okay. I think that was the last question, in fact. I have one more question for you for myself though. I know you said you dont see yourself a sort of a manifesto writer, and thats not something thats likely to be in your future. Do you see yourself engaging more with directly with the socialist tradition . Could you see yourself writing about marx rather than Niall Ferguson . Is that something that interests you . Yes, it does. This book that came out, this life, was away in which getting back into marx and thinking about marx because i was introduced to marxism or marxist books as as a teenager, as a student in this university in north india where i was an undergraduate. I remember that first exposure and reading these books and discussing them within a little circle, im thinking this is really wonderful stuff because the books we reading, the text we were reading emphasize the more humanistic aspects of marxism, the idea of freedom, the idea of spiritual freedom in particular, if this is something, this life particularly makes much of. That would be one way of engaging with that particular tradition, and there is a very long social tradition in india and in different parts of asia that has not been highlighted much. Chinese thinkers in the socialist tradition who also very interested in buddhism and trying to bring the two traditions into a kind of conversation. I think its a mistake to think of socialist tradition as something that really only exists in western europe and the United States. Theres a lot more to the social tradition than marx and Walter Benjamin and various other icons are constantly being quoted. And i was actually wrong. There was a final question from itunes that i come someone has rightly drawn my attention to not finding. The person who posted, if you would mind posting that again is about fiction which i think be great to ask you but i cant put unless you able to drop back now i would love to ask this question. Okay, here it is. The question was whats wrong with socialism . But the person who asked that said its only been answered so not sure what to make of it. Let me try another not everyone is asking things. Someone said that data question about fiction but actually cant find it because i think that would be a great question to ask you what i cant see it. I think im going to have to move on to a different question. Has a the pandemic case and the decline of . I think so. The pandemic has exposed countries that invested too much in the idea of private interests, individuals pursuing private interests. Somehow contributing to the common good. The biggest offenders in this regard were britain and the United States. With their legacy from Ronald Reagan and margaret thatcher. Its not at all surprising that these are the two countries struggling the most against the pandemic, which is actually involve the states in a way that no crisis in the recent past has. Its countries with strong state structures that it managed to do with the pandemic much, much better than the countries with Privatized Health systems, countries with where the commod was systematically ignored for a very long time. So when that sense, liberal ideology with this emphasis on individualism has suffered a a serious blow during the pandemic. I think there will be Going Forward obviously there would be a lot more expectation from what the state can do, and things only the state can do. You see that even in the United States where biden has taken on much of the policy, policies advanced by the bernie sanders, i the last week groom of the Democratic Party Left Wing Group that will be more the exception as a go for it because it clear we need very Strong Social welfare systems. We knew the state to be a stronger actor, a stronger protector of its citizens and weve neglected these things for far too long in the pursuit of this sort of deluded notion that somehow dynamic individuals, entrepreneurs with their Great Initiative are somehow going to make our Society Prosperous and equal. I think that ideology really has been pretty comprehensive. I did actually finally get this question about fiction. It says come when you return to writing novels or are you strictly an essayist . I would love to return to fiction actually. I dream of it all the time. I read a lot of fiction and i often think, i have written so much nonfiction, the process in some ways has really exhausted me. Fiction can do things come action can talk about so many Different Things and nonfiction cannot even begin to cover. So when it since its not a superior form but it is a very different form, and i think that allows for certain kind of complexity. It allows for some kind and nuance that is not readily available in the essay form. So yes, the answer to that is very much so. Thats very good to hear. That is all we have time for. Thank you, pankaj, so much for talking to us. The book came out in the u. S. Yesterday i think. If it yes. It is called bland fanatics liberals, race, and empire. I encourage the audience to check it out. And also sitting for more than. Went back to more even though this is a monthly serious. Thanks again so much, pankaj. Hikes, laura. Have a good night. Booktv continues now on cspan2, television for serious readers. Good evening. Im john lemley with red sea ventures and sirius xm satellite radio, the folks put together everyday of the week crime stories with nancy grace. It is a great honor to be a moderator for two nights program. First of all on behalf of the marcus jcc and the national jcc Literary Consortium i am pleased to welcome you to this special book festival event featuring awardwinning legal journalist and d
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.