Daniel Lak's opinion that writers are just writers and one should leave them alone runs sharply in contrast to his opinion "that reading can divide society" ("A row too far", #83). In fact writers of repute, purveyors to society like VS Naipaul, are "peoples' men". They indeed can divide society. Since the public at large gets touched, influenced and agitated by a writer's voice, he has a moral duty to keep his personal bias out of his work. Naipaul, a self proclaimed unrepentant "snob" who calls all the post-colonial world "half-made societies" the people of the his native Trinidad "drum beating brutes" and solves the problems of Islamic world by labelling all the Muslims' "rage at their own incompetence, a delayed recognition of backwardness" is a genius both at letters and pompousness. I venture that along with Sir Vidia's art, a dose of pomposity might have influenced the so-called firestorm in India.

For the rest of the reading public the extent of relationship with the authors extend further than finishing a book. "The only thing worse than having to read Jeffrey Archer or Jackie Collins" is to be so stupid as to get nothing of value from fiction.

Sagar Rijal
Mankato, Minnesota

Thumbs-up to Daniel Lak for saying "I don't care about a writer's personality or past life or penchant for snail salad or odd sexual practices. It doesn't matter. I read his or her books. I do not assess their life and times and pass moral judgement. Nor do I give a damn what a particular writer thinks about an issue of the day."
Let's not stop at writers.

Vinita Lamsal
California