Submit your Article

Books on books are my favorite kind of books. There is something immensely comforting in reading about someone who finds her way through books. It reinforces my belief that no matter what there is bound to be a book to help us make sense of things.

Christine Féret-Fleury has written over 80 of them. In 1996, she wrote her debut children’s book. ‘The Girl Who Reads on the Metro’ is her first adult novel to be translated into English.

The book caught my eye obviously because of the title but also because of the cover with Parisian houses. It just felt like a good read. It looked soothing—which is something we all need a little of right now. But now that I’ve read it, I’m kind of on the fence about it. I didn’t enjoy it as much as I thought I would but I don’t want to say anything bad about it either. It was a short, cute story but it had some major hiccups.

It’s about a character who loves to read, and who works with books. There are mentions of many books I love. But the story isn’t convincing. It’s about a girl named Juliette who lives in Paris. She hates her job as a realtor but she loves commuting on the metro where she gets to read and see what her fellow commuters are reading.

One day, she decides to get off at a different station than her regular one. She meets Soliman, the owner of an enchanting bookstore who believes books have the power to change lives. He gives Juliette a job as a passeur—someone who match-makes people with second-hand books. Juliette quits her job and then goes around giving the books Soliman assigns her to those who she thinks need them the most. Soliman, on the other hand, keeps a meticulous record of where the books end up.

It's an interesting premise. The problem is it’s not well worked on and things are a bit vague. You see all these fascinating things happening but you don’t really understand the why and the how. It’s also difficult to get attached to the characters, mostly because they feel a little underdeveloped. The connections between the characters also feel a bit forced. The writing too isn’t great but that might not necessarily be the author’s fault. Many things, I feel, might have been lost in translation.

The good thing about The Girl Who Reads on the Metro is that it’s a short book. You can easily finish it in a single afternoon. And it’s fun to hear someone talking about and dealing with books—holding them, smelling them. The idea that you could get so immersed in books that you completely forget the real world is intriguing. It’s something I’ve been contemplating ever since I finished the book.

Fiction
Christine Féret-Fleury
Originally published in France as ‘La fille qui lisait dans le métro’
Translated into English by Ros Schwartz
Published: 2019
Publisher: Pan Books
Pages: 199, Paperback

Some books just make me angry. In the past, that sentiment had mostly been reserved for Paolo Coelho’s books, which I think are preachy and have nothing to offer except obvious moral lessons. I never thought I would be saying it for Sophie Kinsella, bestselling author of the ‘Confessions of a Shopaholic’ series that has also been made into a fun movie starring Isla Fisher as Rebecca Bloomwood, a financial journalist who is forever running into debt because of her compulsive shopping habits. I have read most books in the series—they are fun and cheer you up.

I also enjoyed Kinsella’s stand-alone novel ‘The Undomestic Goddess’, a hilarious story of a high-powered corporate lawyer, Samantha Sweeting, who is mistaken for a job applicant for a housekeeper’s position at this big, beautiful house she stops to ask for directions after boarding a random train. She gets the job but she doesn’t even know how to make eggs or turn on the oven. There was a time when I talked about it every time someone asked me for book recs and even gifted it to friends.

Kinsella wrote light, fluffy books but she left you charmed. I wish she had stuck to writing witty books like these and not tried to tackle serious subjects, which is what she has done in ‘Finding Audrey’.

Here, Kinsella strives to tell the story of a teenager struggling with a mental health condition. We don’t know what happened to Audrey, except vague hints that suggest she was a victim of bullying. What we do know is that she doesn’t go to school anymore and wears dark sunglasses even when indoors. Strangers make her freak out, and she can neither touch nor talk to anyone besides her parents and her brothers, Frank and Felix. Then she meets Frank’s friend Linus who manages to take her to Starbucks and a few other places and talk to strangers in the guise of challenges.

It’s a lame story that undermines what it’s like living with a mental condition. You never know what’s wrong with Audrey and why she is the way she is. Worse, you don’t empathize with her as she seems like a selfish teenager and not someone who has had a lot to deal with at a young age. 

The book’s first 100 pages is just Audrey’s mother going crazy. She is convinced Frank is addicted to video games and tries to get him to read a book or watch a Dickensian movie. The characterization is so poor that she doesn’t even come across as a concerned mother, more like a controlling lunatic. Audrey, who is supposed to be the titular character, just smirks and hides. 

Sophie Kinsella, Author

It’s frustrating because the story goes around in circles and nothing really happens till Audrey makes up her mind to get better, in a moment of epiphany of sorts. As if it’s ever that easy. Kinsella probably had a vague story idea and felt she had to include the issue of mental health because it’s an important conversation. But she didn’t bother to do any research and learn just how debilitating mental illnesses can be. The result is an unconvincing, sloppy, and insensitive story.

Young Adult Fiction
Finding Audrey
Sophie Kinsella
Published: 2015
Publisher: Corgi Books
Language: English
Pages: 279, Paperback

Despite an eventful week, in which we relaunched the print edition of The Annapurna Express, I finally succeeded in committing myself to a series that had been on my watchlist for almost a month now. Co-produced by BBC One and Netflix, “The Serpent” has been a trending topic of discussion for film lovers online and I couldn’t put it off any longer.

The eight-part crime drama serial has a strong connection with Nepal and features the life and crimes of serial-killer Charles Sobhraj, also dubbed the ‘bikini killer’ and ‘the serpent’ based on the nature of his crimes and his cunningness. Told in different timelines using flashbacks to switch between the past and the present, The Serpent chronicles Sobhraj’s criminal activities from the early 70s till his arrest in Nepal in 2003, where he is still imprisoned, serving two life sentences for the murders he committed back in 1975.

The plot of the series is already known to the world with plenty of online resources available on Shobhraj’s life. It is the execution of these available timelines, with some creative liberties of course, that makes The Serpent deservedly get so much attention.

Algerian-French actor Tahar Rahim plays Shobraj, the French serial killer of Vietnamese-Indian origin, embodying his beguiling personality with much conviction. Compared to Randeep Hooda’s Sobhraj in “Mein Aur Charles” (2015)—which I thought would remain the best on-screen portrayal of the mysterious serial-killer—Rahim’s personification is what apples are to oranges. While Hooda’s Shobhraj had the style and suave befitting a Bollywood production, Rahim’s is more raw, gritty and tenacious. With the character of Charles Sobhraj itself covered in a number of multi-ethnic, multi-lingual layers, Rahim does an excellent job of personifying the bundle of complexities called Shobhraj.

In the supporting roles, Jenna Coleman plays Marie-Andrée Leclerc, Sobhraj’s Québécois girlfriend who assists him in smuggling, robbing, and unknowingly in murder. In this adaptation, however, Coleman’s Leclerc is just one of the lost souls who Sobhraj captivates and uses to commit his heinous crimes. Amesh Edireweera as Ajay Chowdhury—Sobhraj’s partner-in-crime—has the simple task of showcasing unrelenting evil and violence on screen. While Sobhraj seems to have at least some method to his madness, Chowdhury is utterly evil and actor Edireweera portrays the role convincingly. Billy Howle as Herman Knippenberg—a Dutch diplomat in Bangkok whose investigations lead to Sobhraj’s capture and incrimination—is also one of the strong onscreen presences that make the series enticing.

Attention to detail is another strength of The Serpent. The makers have put in a lot of effort into research and execution as they recreate the 70s hippie era in countries like India, Pakistan, Thailand and Nepal. Jhochhen (Freak Street) featured in some parts of the series is extremely convincing, as if it was actually shot back in the 70s itself. The attention to detail is so intricate that the makers recreate the iconic Snowman Café of Jhochhen—a hip joint back in the 70s—which still exists.

Told in so different timelines and travelling to-and-fro across many countries, The Serpent manages not to break the story’s continuity. The series retains a healthy pace throughout and every episode is enjoyable. The only complaint with the producers, who have otherwise worked so hard: the use of Indian actors for Nepali characters, and recognized faces at that. The Nepali film industry, although nowhere as big as Bollywood, definitely has actors who could have fit the supporting roles. Honestly, it feels wrong to see Indian actors take up Nepali roles when such faux pas could easily have been avoided.

Who should watch it?

This review is for those who have not watched The Serpent yet. I know quite a few who are apprehensive about starting a series lest it disappoints and wastes their time. This one, I would assure, is worth every minute spent on Netflix. If you like crime thrillers or dramas based on real-life people, this one is for you.

Rating: 4 stars
Genre: Crime, drama
Actors: Tahar Rahim, Jenna Coleman
Directors: Tom Shankland, Hans Herbots
Run time: 7hrs approx.

“Roohi”, released theatrically on March 11, was one of the first movies to be played in Nepal’s cinema halls after the lockdowns. Those who could brave being inside confined spaces of cinema halls with their air-conditionings on might have probably watched the movie, which is still showing in some of Kathmandu’s theaters. For others not brave enough, Netflix released the Hindi-language film on its platform this week. 

Set in a village called Bagadpur in India, “Roohi” the movie is about a girl called Roohi (Janhvi Kapoor) and the extraordinary things that happen in her life. Bhawra (Rajkummar Rao) and Kattanni (Varun Sharma) are members of a kidnapping gang in the village where bride-kidnapping is a custom. Under the leadership of Guniya Bhai (Manav Vij), the duo kidnap girls and force them to marry grooms that pay them for their services. 

An innocent Roohi becomes one of the gang’s victims when a prospective groom hires them to kidnap her. But due to a death in the groom’s family Bhawra and Kattanni are forced to hide her for a few days in an abandoned shack in the middle of a jungle. The two men hold their victim hostage in a shed. Little do they know they are dealing with a sinister force.  

It turns out Roohi is possessed with the spirit of Afza, a ‘mudiyapairi’ (a ghost with feet turned backward). Terrified at first without the option to escape, Bhawra then falls in love with Roohi. To complicate things, Kattanni falls in love with the spirit Afza. From then on, the film’s plot tries to explain what transpires in the lives of the three people and one ghost. 

To be blunt, “Roohi” doesn’t offer much to the audience. The plot itself is a ghastly attempt at replicating some successful Indian horror-comedies. For horror-comedies to be successful, they need to be either scary or funny, or both for best result. Either that or they have to have a lot of adult content to at least cater to one group of audience. “Roohi” has nothing of the sort.

The film’s writing and Hardik Mehta’s direction are not the only let downs though. Janhvi Kapoor, who comes from one of the most influential families in Bollywood and is heiress to the legacy of the legendary late Sri Devi, embarrasses herself in the film. She is utterly unconvincing as Roohi, a kidnapping victim. And disaster strikes the screen every time Kapoor’s character is possessed; her portrayal of Afza (mudiyapari) is painful to watch.

The same can be said about the more established Rajkummar Rao. As a small-time ‘good-hearted’ goon from a rural village, Rao is unable to display even half the skills he’s shown in films like “Newton” and “Bareilly Ki Barfi.” (Both 2017 movies with Rao in the lead.) It is probably the writing that gives his character a confused appearance, not allowing Rao to get into his elements as an actor. Or playing the same kind of roles in low-budget movies has made him mundane.

The exact same words can be used for Varun Sharma of the “Fukrey” fame. The 2013 comedy film propelled him to fame in Bollywood, with a string of other comedy films to follow. Unfortunately, Sharma has not been able to grow as an actor. It somehow does not feel right watching him do the same thing again and again. If he fails to shed his “Choocha” image he’s been carrying from Fukrey, he will soon age out of Bollywood.

The writing is again to be blamed. Both Rao and Sharma’s characters try to caricature the rural Indian youth. But instead the writing ends up mocking and stereotyping them. The film does try to address the issues of casteism and religious dogmas but the message is easily lost in such a pointless plot.

Who should watch it?

“Roohi” is tolerable only if you have a strong palate for horror comedies. You must be really bored and free to indulge the shoddy acting and direction. Or be a big fan of one of the main characters.

Rating: 1.5 stars
Director: Hardik Mehta
Actors: Rajkummar Rao, Janhvi Kapoor, Varun Sharma
Run time: 2h 14mins