Geeks logo

Book Review: “Bland Fanatics” by Pankaj Mishra

2/5 - Good points. Bad writing. Filled with misinformation and obviousness

By Annie KapurPublished 4 years ago 4 min read
Like

Pankaj Mishra’s book “Bland Fanatics” is basically our answer to Edward Said’s “Orientalism” - well, at least the first few essays are. Often presented as overtly pretentiously worded articles, Mishra actually fails on the key points of his argument, often skirting around the issue and addressing things that are possibly less important. However, there are things that I agree with when he does make a point and certainly, there are important arguments to be had here - I am just wondering whether Mishra has his own priorities, considering his political sway, a little bit mixed up for the time being. Sentences and paragraphs inside Mishra’s essays are often overly word-heavy and require to be broken down to understand them, which is something else I take issue with. Mixed within political jargon and inaccessible writing, Mishra has managed to create a barrier between himself and the common reader who possibly did not go to university or has not got the education required to understand the ins and outs of politics in the modern world. The real question here is: does Mishra fail to actually enforce his point as he commits himself to word-heavy sentences and paragraphs? Is this entire book just one big irony?

One thing I have to say I agree with when it comes to this text is the way in which Mishra addresses Islamaphobia and Anti-Semitism. He addresses it as such: the public are made to believe that the peaceful Muslim, Jew or Immigrant living in the Western World is a threat to them as a next door neighbour but the fact that the UK and the USA basically levelled much of their home countries is actually a good thing. This is a key argument that I feel comes up over and over again in Mishra’s work throughout the book and is possibly put forward strongest early on. Unfortunately, the argument becomes a repetitive history lesson as the book progresses rather than a statement of injustice against the weak.

The argument that Mishra makes of World War One being covered in the fight against authoritarianism is a good argument but again, a weak one. Less in the way the argument is presented and more in the way it is elaborated on - Mishra’s theories seem outdated and not his own. He has borrowed from the GCSE History Book and managed to weave into this fantasy a methodical race war that everyone already knew happened but Mishra seems to want to teach us history in his world rather than again, make a point.

For reasons I’m not quite sure why, but Mishra feels the need to address the Modi regime in comparison to the Nehru-Gandhi one and within it, he makes some good points about the fanaticism surrounding the Modi regime and yet, he fails to actually grasp the key ideas of why the Nehru-Gandhi regime did not actually hold up in the newer world. His arguments on the two regimes are incredibly one-sided and offer the reader no real insight to think about why the Modi regime may be doing better than expected in terms of support. His comparisons of Modi to other world leaders is often a bland repetition of a political twitter mobs’ writings.

Finally, Mishra’s writings on Jordan Peterson are often misinformed. Calling Peterson a ‘far-right’ philosopher and comparing him to the political philosopher Douglas Murray seems to be an odd and rather false comparison. There are a number of untruths in this essay about Dr. Peterson that I would actually like to see addressed. It doesn’t matter whether you yourself support anyone or not, you cannot go spreading ill-informed, often debated and mostly debunked ‘facts’ about them. Mishra’s information on Dr. Peterson goes as far as the newest book by him, the YouTube interviews he has given, and possibly Dr. Peterson’s twitter page. But it does not delve into enough depth to criticise the man. The other thing about this essay is it fails to concentrate on Dr. Peterson for most of the part - instead it focuses on ‘twitter mobs’ and such that come to Dr. Peterson’s defence against others who spread misinformations about him. This is a very strange comment to make seeing as Mishra has spread misinformations himself about Dr. Peterson within this book. However, not being informed upon a subject and being told what is actually afoot here and having your virtual guts dragged out before you are two entire different things that I think Mr. Mishra needs to learn.

All in all, the book makes some overall good points, but through the ironic writing style, the mess of organisation and bits and pieces of misinformation - Mishra has missed the mark entirely. He can do better.

literature
Like

About the Creator

Annie Kapur

190K+ Reads on Vocal.

English Lecturer

🎓Literature & Writing (B.A)

🎓Film & Writing (M.A)

🎓Secondary English Education (PgDipEd)

📍Birmingham, UK

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.