<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/680794</link>
		<description>Comments by Dexterwitty</description>
<item>
<title>The Melting Pot : 100 Shades of White</title>
<link>http://tmp.uthfull.org/random/100-shades-of-white.html#IDComment37842540</link>
<description>To begin with, I should mention that I shall definitely be picking up a copy of 100 Shades of White the next time I&amp;#039;m at the local bookstore. That being said, I completely agree with Nancy when she calls this is a shitty review, for giving yourself away as an ill-read person, if nothing else. To appreciate one book by putting down another is definitely a comment on your own viewpoints rather than the book, as it is supposed to be. When Varun says that Chetan Bhagat writes with a target audience in mind, I&amp;#039;d say he&amp;#039;s right on the dot, given Bhagat&amp;#039;s IIM-IIT background, which I suppose would lend itself quite easily to such an approach to writing. And then for you to imply that all Khushwant Singh writes about is sex and lasciviousness, it just casts you in a horrendous light as a reader. While I hardly consider Singh to be the most stellar of Indian writers, his vast body of work from the &amp;#039;50s onwards is hardly a study in erotica. In fact, I would venture so far as to consider The Mark of Vishnu and Other Short Stories a classic of Indo-Anglian fiction, while the reputation of Train to Pakistan as a work of literature from the Partition precedes it. I would suggest you read up a bit more before you come back to reviewing. And a crash course in punctuation, when you&amp;#039;re reviewing literature, wouldn&amp;#039;t hurt either. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://tmp.uthfull.org/random/100-shades-of-white.html#IDComment37842540</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>