Dr Ishwarprasad Gilada, founder, General-Secretary and driving force behind the People’s Health Organisation in India, has been fighting against the horrors of the Bombay sex trade for the last two decades. Sharon interviewed Dr Gilada for Spotlight, an English-language magazine in Germany. Read the interview here.

The following interview questions and answers have been taken from various interviews with Sharon Maas.

You can also find the HarperCollins interview here, Sharon’s interview with WriteWords here and an article reproduced from the Staebrook News here.

You can address your own questions to Sharon via her new guestbook. The old guestbook is archived here.

Why did you start writing?
Which of your books and characters therein do you like best and least?
Who are your favourite authors?
In what language/s do you read?
Will you / would you / have you translate(d) your books yourself?
Is your fourth book set in India/Guyana or a whole new setting?
How has travelling helped your writing?
Have you considered writing anything about your life as a mother, wife and writer?
How long do you write each day?
Do you Plan your novels in advance?
Now that you have published 3 novels, have you noticed any recurring themes?
Age at writing
Are your novels Autobiographical?
What about Coincidence?

On Cultural identity:
Specifically because of your multiculturalism : were you tempted to write in a language other than English?
In the modern world, multiculturalism is a big theme...





Why did you start writing?

Though I’ve always been a voracious reader, at some point I became aware that I was only ever reading about people and cultures foreign to my own experience. In Guyana we had a British educational system and I was raised on English Literature. Which I loved – but one day I realised I was missing something. Nothing of the reality of my own life, or that of the people around me, was in the books I read. Our experience – which was quite different to that of the British and American protagonists in the novels on offer - was simply not taken seriously by the literary elite. The people I knew were not in the books I read - or anybody even remotely like them.

Plus, I had this gigantic urge for self-expression and communication, which was not being fulfilled. I was never a big talker – I was a silent, observant child who much preferred writing to speaking, exploring my inner world rather than collecting facts. My introverted temperament led me directly to writing – to put into words what I felt so intensely, but could not communicate through speech. In real life I felt awkward, insecure; in fiction I was strong, confident, courageous.

When I first started to write fiction I was living in a tiny German village, where we were regarded somewhat as exotic aliens. I had been working as a probation officer but hated the idea of going back to work after the birth of my daughter.

I was basically on my own, but with a wealth of experience inside me – I had lived in different countries, knew different cultures, and all of it was locked up inside, and wanted to get out. I needed to write.

Our house was an old farmhouse without central heating – I was freezing in the winter! My son was having problems at school. We had financial difficulties. My way of dealing with it was to create a new world. I sat down at my computer, put on my thickest coat, cap, boots, scarf, and fingerless gloves, and let the story for OMA came tome. It kept me warm and gave me joy in a cold and hopeless period of my life. [back to top]

Which of your books and characters therein do you like best and least?

Of Marriageable Age, (OMA) definitely! This is because it was written under very special circumstances, and its way into the world was something of a miracle birth for me. I wrote it with an innocence and joy that would be hard to find again; I was not thinking of publication, simply writing the story as it came to me, and it flowed very spontaneously. Many people say "Peacocks Dancing" is better, and I hope to improve my writing craft with every book; but there's always only one "first time" and I was aware of a sense of magic when writing OMA which I did not have with the others - and which I think many readers have sensed.

I believe that everything an author feels while writing a book goes into the substance of the story. It is there, between the lines. If the author is afraid it will not find a publisher, it's there; if the author is arrogant, and thinks he/she is God's gift to mankind, that's there too. Anxiety, boredom, excitement, contempt for the reader, insecurity - it's all there in a very subtle way, and a sensitive reader will pick up these emotions and they will influence his/her enjoyment of the book. If the author was bored, the book will be boring. If the author disdains the reader, the reader is somehow put off, without quite understanding why.

I wrote OMA with love: love for the characters, and intrigue as to what would happen to them - which I had not planned out beforehand. I felt as if the story was alive, and already written, being dictated to me from day to day; I never knew what was coming next, and yet I trusted that it would work itself out, no matter how tangled everything seemed at the moment of writing. It was like hanging over a precipice, yet being held by an invisible hand - exhilarating! Judging from the feedback I received on this particular book, it seems most readers picked up on that.

 As for characters: in OMA I liked Savitri the best. She was someone very precious and seemed to represent everything I most love about India. I did not think her up consciously; she sort of burst onto the scene and from that moment was very alive in me. I felt all of her pain as if it were my own. On the other hand, I can most identify with Rita in Peacocks Dancing, who is emotionally very much like me. Though of course she has her very own story - this was not my life at all!

The character I like the least is Marilyn, Rita's stepmother in Peacocks Dancing. She is also the only one of my "bad" characters who did not find some sort of redemption at the end, or did not repent in some small way. In my next book, the Speech of Angels, there's also a stepmother I didn't like very much, although she is nowhere nearly as nasty as Marilyn. [back to top]

Who are your favourite authors?

There have been different one at various seasons of my life. As a child, my earliest memories are of the poems of A.A.Milne - I can still recite some of these by heart. Then, everything by Enid Blyton. As a teenager I could have died for "My Friend Flicka" which I think is a classic that should be read by everyone! And the sequels, Thunderhead and Green Grass of Wyoming.

In school, I was one of the few who loved Shakespeare. And like most schoolgirls, I adored Jane Eyre. Also Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens.

More recently, I discovered "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway, and have seldom read anything that had such an earth-moving effect on me. I didn't like anything else by Hemingway, though.

And then, just last year, I discovered the novels of Susan Howatch and read all thirteen of them back-to-back. They are very underrated books, I feel, and deserve more critical acclaim. Here you have epic novels with brilliant storytelling, depth of character, layers of meaning, combined with very good writing - what more can you ask for in a book!

I also loved "A Suitable Boy" by Vikram Seth, "A Fine Balance" by Rohinton Mistry, and "The Bonesetter's Daughter" by Amy Tan. And too many more to mention. [back to top]

In what language/s do you read?

Now, only English. At school I did learn Spanish and French and studied the literature of those languages, but I couldn't do that now, I’ve grown rusty...

When I first learned German I was so eager to practice that I only read novels in German - even those that were originally in English! - in that language. This went on for many years. I remember devouring all the John leCarre novels in German - a strange phenomenon! But after many years in Germany I began to feel starved for my own language and went back to digging up as many English novels as I could, and I never read another book in German. [back to top]

Specifically because of your multiculturalism : were you tempted to write in a language other than English?

No way! I could never have felt as confident in another language - I would have constantly worried about the language instead of simply telling the story. [back to top]

Will you / would you / have you translate(d) your books yourself?

Again, no. I think novels should always be translated by someone who speaks that language as a mother tongue - there are so many nuances, and translating is an art in itself. I do get to read the German translations before they go to proof, though, and can make changes and suggestions. Not so with the other languages. I haven't even read the French and Spanish translations, and I don't know a word of Danish. I guess you just have to trust that the foreign publishers choose good people and get it right - there's no way an author who is translated can ever check what becomes of her books. [back to top]

Is your fourth book set in India/Guyana or a whole new setting?

It is again set in Guyana. I am rather limited in my choice of setting, as I can only write confidently about a place I have known intimately. This boils down to four countries: Guyana, India, Germany and England. So that's where, for the time being, all my novels will be set. It would be great to pick any place on the globe and set a story there - but I don't think any author has that freedom! Even if you were to research a place for a novel - nothing can replace actually living there; knowing its people and how they think; breathing in the very atmosphere.

And on the other hand, Guyana is not a limitation. Even in such a small, globally insignificant country there is such a vast palette of human variety from which to draw. So much colour, so much passion, so much drama - so much richness there.

I once read a literary critic who, after reading the second Amy Tan book, said she was tired of reading of China. I find this shows a limited attitude - how can one book be representative of such a vast country? Does anyone say they are tired of reading books set in England? Where else is a Chinese author to set her stories? It's the same with Guyana. And size doesn't matter. Guyana may be small, and yet the opportunity for finding drama there is as endless as in any of the more traditional settings. So - there is no such thing as limitation. Jane Austen's world was very limited - and look at what she did with it! It's imagination that counts; and that, when combined with the need to understand and portray the human situation, is unlimited.

Of course many novelists have successfully set books in places and times they are not intimately acquainted with - historical novels in particular come to mind. But a great deal of research goes into such novels, and extensive research is not possible for me right now - I have a family. And digging up thousands of facts is the very antithesis of my nature! But it's certainly possible, by getting the facts right, to create a certain atmosphere - the reader forms inner associations and conjures up the atmosphere himself. For instance, a coach rattling over a cobbled street - immediately you are in another century. But I tend not to concentrate on facts as much as feelings.
I have a few chapters of OMA set in Singapore, where I have never been - and wartime Singapore at that. There is very little actual description, of the place - but the way the protagonists felt was important for these scenes; the sense of foreboding, their concern for each other, their bravery in the face of danger, and so on. The historical facts I was able to lift wholesale from a book I happened to be reading shortly before, and which gave me a few ideas!

For instance, the "cigarette lighter" which saved David's life.... it might sound, to the reader, like a pretty outlandish and miraculous coincidence, (I have been waiting for a bloody-minded reader to write me saying this was impossible, ‘over The top’, and all the rest, but it hasn't happened yet!). But this actually happened to a real doctor, working at the real Alexandra Hospital, during the very real attack by the Japanese. Similarly. the Asian nurses' decision to stay on at the General Hospital - that too was real, and I felt this drama of this scene so acutely when I read about it I just had to put it in. So in fact I did feel the atmosphere of that Singapore setting - except that it came second hand, from a book! [back to top]

How has travelling helped your writing?

It might be a cliche but travelling really does broaden the mind. By travelling I mean not simply visiting a country as a tourist, but actually living there, feeling its pulse, dropping your own cultural baggage, exposing yourself to a way of think./feeling/expressing that might by diametrically opposed to your own; seeing what fits into your own life . A lot of what went into my books is a certain understanding I gleaned through living in a wide variety of cultures. When I was 19-20 I travelled overland, mostly hitchhiking, through South America. I've lived in the hut of a fisherman off the Ecuadorian coasts, with a poor single mother on a Colombian island, with Indians in the Amazon and in the Andes. Later on I travelled overland through Europe and Asia to India; all this time my subconscious mind was working, observing and absorbing life, making connections, trying to understand. And all of this rubs off into my books. I returned from my travels a changed person, with a completely different view of life. All of these experiences went into my writing – not necessarily directly, but indirectly, through the insights I gained while “on the road”. [back to top]

Have you considered writing anything about your life as a mother, wife and writer?

I think much of this will inevitably find its way into my writing - but in the form of fiction! I don't see myself writing any non-fiction or anything autobiographical - it's far more interesting to make up stories, and bring the various bits and pieces of my life into the stories as required - along with the purely imaginary elements. To weave everything seamlessly together, so you can't tell what is fact and what is fiction, and so that it really doesn't matter - that's my ideal. [back to top]

How long do you write each day? How much discipline do you have to have to dedicate yourself to your writing? Do you start at a certain time, end at a certain time, set aside non-writing days?

I have to confess: as the most undisciplined person in the world I simply have to have a very strong discipline when it comes to writing, or nothing would ever get done. During my first three books I had a strict 9 - 12 schedule, Mondays to Fridays, during school term. I have to be very stern with myself and have coached my mind to believe that these are my writing hours - and it obeys.

Now it’s 4 – 7a.m. Daily life in England is just too distracting. I need that quiet early morning time.

The many years previously spent in India, learning to meditate and keeping the mind still, was also an enormous help. It's not so much keeping it still that's the problem, it's the initial reluctance to sit down each morning and go where I'm supposed to go - I'd much rather cuddle up on the sofa and read a book! Once I start, however, it's fine. When I'm off I no longer need discipline, for it flows like a river and on a good day I forget the time, so the 12 o’clock stopping time doesn't count. It’s good here in England because I'm alone all day, but in Germany the children only had half day school.When they came home it was: "Mum, what's for lunch?" "Huh? Wha....? "Lunch? Oh, yeah, lunch - let me get a pizza out of the freezer!" We ate an awful lot of frozen pizzas in that time.

I haven't yet got into the habit of writing on till late afternoon but I hope in time that will come. But basically I am quite laid-back - so the actual discipline of writing is quite against my nature. Thinking up stories, dreaming - oh yes, that's easy, I've been doing that all my life. But the actual hard work of getting them down on paper needs a push - every day. Yet the need to do so was stronger than my basic laziness so that's what won in the end.

I never write when there are children in the house. That's mainly because my desk is smack in the middle of everything, in the living room, and I need seclusion and the knowledge I won't be disturbed. That's also the reason I only write during term-time. [back to top]

Do you edit anything before finishing a novel, or do you let it pour out and then edit (your edits as opposed to those suggested by your agent)? Do you outline in advance?

I never edit the first draft, nor do I let anyone see it. I let it all pour out in a rush and never go back to correct typos etc. When that is over, I do a second draft and maybe a third, editing what I think needs editing. Then it goes to my editor (the agent doesn't edit) for feedback, and further work follows. [back to top]

Now that you have published 3 novels, have you noticed any recurring themes or character types in your books?

Yes, several.

For a start, in all three novels I've started with my characters in their childhood. So much of the adults we become is rooted in our early years, and it seemed only natural to show the "becoming" of these people by telling their story right from the start.

Secondly, my characters are in some way extraordinary, larger than life, have some special gift that makes them "different". For Savitri, it's the gift of healing; Jyothi is a musical prodigy; and Rita is extraordinarily weird! Being "different" is a feeling I've had to deal with all my life and it seemed only natural to invent such characters. It's not for me to write about everyday people leading everyday lives - I have a hankering for epic stories, quite beyond the little dramas we all face.

But most importantly: all of my novels to date have dealt with the theme of cultural identity - defining it, losing it, longing for it, finding it again, letting go of it. There is the theme of alienation: growing up in a culture that is not your own, feeling isolated and insecure for that very reason, and struggling to find a measure of independence that is based more on individuality than on reliance on one's inherited cultural tradition.

In the modern world, multiculturalism is a big theme and seems a trendy topic - it's everywhere, in all the media, books and movies. It’s become a cliché. But for those of us who grew up in a racial and cultural melting-pot such as Guyana it's not just the latest bandwagen to jump on till the next one comes along. We grew up groping and struggling with these issues, and in many cases it has been the fire that tried us, or destroyed us. [back to top]

A bit overdramatic, perhaps?

Overdramatic? Only someone who has lived through it can judge. Belonging to a particular culture, identifying with a certain age-old tradition, pride in all the great achievements one's society has produced, is for many people - most people, perhaps, and certainly those who consider themselves people of culture - the very cornerstone for their sense of identity; so much so they hardly even notice it. It’s the very substance from which the "great nations" derive their authority, their confidence, and, in some cases, their swagger. One only has to look at the pride with which people say "I'm American, I'm Scottish, I'm Indian" to understand. Take this away, and what have you?

So take a small, poor country like Guyana which does not have a long history of great achievements, or world-famous artists, scientists etc. to call its own. If you say "I'm Guyanese" people of other, "greater", cultures smile indulgently and rather pityingly, as if to say, "instantly forgettable". When V.S. Naipaul speaks disparagingly of the lack - or loss - of culture in his own country, Trinidad, it's this he is speaking of. Small countries such as Guyana and Trinidad are the result of many cultures coming together and losing themselves in an amalgam that seems to have no particular profile, no tradition, no unified history – they’re a chaos of uprooted people thrown together willy-nilly.

Without a background of "great culture" a society, and its individuals, becomes shallow; it has no age-old cultural framework to hold it up; it is threatened by degeneration. Yet what seems to be a disadvantage can, with a different attitude, be actually put to advantage.

Growing up I was intensely aware of the cultural void around me. There was no intrinsic Guyanese culture. We were a land of six races, but all of them transplanted, weakened, without profile or substance. We were educated to admire and look up to the British, yet we were not British; Britishness was always something better that we could not, could never, aspire to be. There go the seeds of a house-high inferiority complex! We always looked beyond Guyana's shores for some understanding of who we were; many of us emigrated, looking for better lives elsewhere. But for many of us there was an intense rebellion against what seemed destiny's stamp, and the sentence to mediocrity.

This led to an internal struggle; there was something in us that cried out, this cannot be! We knew it! Since society did not deliver the depth and the "culture" we needed to for a sense of identity, we had to consciously seek out something in ourselves that elevates and educates, we had to make lives, good lives, extraordinary lives, for ourselves. I've met so many Guyanese who have led such extraordinary lives and become extraordinary people, who have made that extra effort to get out of the slump of mediocrity, or even inferiority, which seemed our birthright.

When many cultures and races bleed into each other the weaknesses of each are bound to come to the fore, but there are also hidden strengths, and I think this is what many of us consciously sought, and found. When we say we are Guyanese we do so with a certain pride there which nobody else can understand . It was a unique country, a unique place to grow up in, and I wouldn't change it for all the great nations of the world!

So, in a nutshell, this struggle for inner culture, cultivation of the mind, the need to nurture the spirit independent of whatever else society gives or withholds, has been a leading force in my life and, looking back, I've passed this struggle on to all of my main characters! [back to top]

Your first novel was published when you were in your late forties. Do you regret not having started to write earlier? Or do you think it's better to start writing later in life, when one has gained some experience?

I wrote my first "novels" when I was 8 years old! They were never published however...! I think school knocked the love of writing out of me for decades. Perhaps it's because teachers are not novelists themselves; they can analyse novels but know little about the act of creation. They often believe that the tools of analysis are the tools of creation. That is very wrong, and who knows how many would-be novelists have been nipped in the bud by this method! In my case I was overwhelmed by all the literature analysis; I thought I could never write something like that – though I longed to – and gave up on myself.

Schoolchildren are often taught story structure, grammar, spelling, plot structure and so on as the basis of story writing. They are not allowed to create, as wildly and as brilliantly as they want to, to let their inborn stories flow out of them and on to paper, to spread the wings of their imagination. If they are dreamers, they are told to get down to earth. They are taught linear thinking - and this is exactly the antithesis of creativity, in fact, the death of creativity. This is especially the case in Germany; my son, who was full of wonderful stories, was constantly reprimanded and given bad grades for "too much imagination". He was told to structure his stories better and all the rest of it, to press them into a form pre-ordained by the teacher. It was more important to write a boring, predictable, well-structured story with no spelling mistakes - those essays got the A's, my son's got the D's. Finally he lost all the joy of writing.

The first draft of a story has to flow freely - it comes straight from the centre of creativity – an entity that actually exists but is little known and little examined - and should not be tampered with by the intellect. Only in a later draft should the intellect be given a say, and THEN the story can be structured, altered, polished and so on.
It's true that there are many successful authors who write and revise simultaneously - but this should be a choice and not forced on all children by a non-creative teacher. Those who write by instinct - and I believe those are the natural storytellers - must be allowed to develop in their own way. As they are usually extremely sensitive, these are also the ones who are most likely to give up too early. They need tremendous amounts of encouragement and praise - often they are plagued by self-doubt, and the feeling that what they have produced is nonsense. But once they get into their stride they are the ones who fly the highest. Think of Todd Anderson in The Dead Poet's Society!

Those who find joy in writing should do so from as early an age as possible. I wish I had continued, I wish I had not spent years knowing I had to do something worthwhile and creative with my life but not knowing what it was, having lost confidence in writing!

There are some very brilliant young writers. It's not a matter of age. It's a matter if imagination, and of understanding the human situation. They say the latter only comes with age; but my daughter, aged 15, is better at summing up people just after a short meeting, and has more understanding, and more of a natural feeling for ethics, than some people do at 30 or 40. It's a talent; born storytellers are observers, and have a natural empathy with their fellow humans. They try to understand rather than judge.

On the other hand, I would never have been able to write the novels of the last few years at the age of 20. Behind those novels lie years of experience, of living through a wide variety of situations and seeing how they turned out in the long run. Too often when we are young, we are impatient, and see only the drama or the suffering of the present, as it is unfolding NOW. We think life is inherently evil, or depressing - or we are euphoric and see it through rose-tinted spectacles. Age gives you a sense of balance and proportion. You are more detached; and I think a combination of intense passion and absolute detachment are two ingredients that make a good writer. Sometimes what seems "bad" at the moment, in the end turns out to be "good", as we have grown through the bad experience, become better, more mature, wiser people. We don't understand this when we are young.

I may very well have written publishable books in my twenties; I do wish somebody had encouraged me more to do so, and that I had honed my craft from that early age. On the other hand I don't think those books would have had much depth or substance to them. There are some very wise 20 year olds, who might be able to produce excellent books; alas, I was rather lost and struggling with myself, and the world is probably better off without the books I would have written at that age! It’s one thing to be a good writer; it’s quite another to have something worth saying. In my case, that took time.

It's also rather unfortunate that most young writers have led very sheltered lives; they are usually from middle class, educated families and have not really gone down into the underbelly of society. They have not led the epic kind of lives that produces the substance for big, larger than life stories - which are the kind of stories I prefer. They have not known much existential need. I firmly believe that that sort of suffering is a pre-requisite for good storytelling. [back to top]

Are any of your novels autobiographical? Do you base your characters and plots on real situations?

The stories are always completely imagined. I might identify with one or the other of the characters - for instance, with Rita in Peacocks Dancing - but the events which shaped her life have not one thing in common with my own autobiography. The same with the other novels. [back to top]

But you said earlier that your experiences went into the novels.

Yes; but not in the sense of the novel stories following my life in any chronological order. Some elements might crop up as needed; others are imagined. They intermingle as needed; it's a blend. I would never make myself, exactly as I am, a novel character; though my own life does sometimes seem to be something of a novel, with as many twists and turns and reversals of fortune! I am always anxious to see what will happen on the next page!

But to make myself a character in novel - no. On the contrary - when I am writing I have to forget myself completely, become the character I am writing about, and allow him or her to show me what his or her story is. They feel alive for me, and their stories, while I am inside them, seem as real as in the real world. So I don't need to cling to what really happened. [back to top]

So how do you keep the world of fiction separate from the real world?

By keeping exact times for writing, and stopping when my time is up! It's sometimes hard because even when I am being myself, in the real world, I feel the story simmering in the background. I try not to think consciously of it but it's always there, working in the depths. That's perhaps the reason that when I do sit down to write, it seems already pre-formed, the inner-story problems worked out. If I am ever at a loss as to how something is going to turn out I allow it to simmer some more, trusting an innate intelligence to work it out, to untie the knots. Up to now it always has. [back to top]

One reviewer on Amazon has complained that much of the plot of Of Marriageable Age hinges on coincidence. What do you say to that?

Frankly, I don't believe in coincidence. I believe that every single thing that happens is absolutely perfect for the moment and the person and never just random. Anyone who has absorbed even a little bit of Eastern culture will understand this; especially in India, the events in our lives are considered to be the result of a variety of factors, first and foremost a result of our own needs and desires of the moment as well as our past thoughts and actions.

Once you start seeing life this way, more and more "coincidences" take place. Here's an example that happened a few months ago:

A German friend was staying at my home and was due to fly back to Germany, via a French airport. At the same time, I was urgently trying to get hold of the telephone number of an aunt of mine who lives in the USA; I wanted to ring my cousin in London (her daughter) to get hold of my aunt's number but had lost my cousin's number.

I sent my German friend to Stansted airport, north of London, and thought that was dealt with. Then I got a desperate call from her: France was on strike and all flights were cancelled for the next three days. I had to do some quick thinking to help her (she does not know her way about England and speaks little English, plus she is not much of a traveller and did not have much money, and needed to get home quickly).

I finally was able to book her a flight the next day - to Frankfurt, from Gatwick airport, south of London. I accompanied her there.

We were walking through the airport hall when somebody called out to me. It was my cousin, the aunt's daughter. She was able to tell me: her mother had arrived in England the previous day and I could actually visit her if I wanted!

Now this cousin of mine works on ground staff at Heathrow airport and had been sent that day to Gatwick to sort out some problem with her airline. She had not been to Gatwick for 13 years!

What an extraordinary chain of events. The chances against either one of us being at Gatwick on that day were - how many million to one? But both of us! And then running into each other in a busy international airport in the short time (15 minutes?) it took me to get my friend to check-out. And on top of that, my aunt being in London that very day.

It seemed as if everything - the strike in France, the problem with United, my aunt's visit to Britain - had been meticulously planned for the sole purpose of ensuring that I got hold of my aunt that day!

If I had put that into a novel I would have been blasted for "too much coincidence". Yet this kind of thing happens to me frequently. I believe if you are of a certain temperament, you actually attract such seeming coincidences. Your mind becomes a magnet for whatever is necessary for you right then and there, and it's a delight to observe and see the intelligence behind the stories of our lives. Our lives become novels, and you can't wait for the next page to turn - surprises all the time!

Two of the characters in Of Marriageable Age - Nat and Savitri - are of that certain temperament.

On the other hand, I went out of my way to ensure that all the seeming coincidences in the novel were either inevitable, or else so fleeting that no plot twist actually hinged on them. The biggest coincidence was perhaps the meeting of Nat and Saroj in Southampton. Arriving from two corners of the world, they get their first glimpse of each other. That really is a coincidence. Yet nothing comes of it. They lose each other again, and don't meet again for several years - and this time, the meeting is a result of careful weaving together of their separate lives through Gopal.

Another coincidence is the meeting of Nat and Govind in Colombo. But this is not an important meeting; nothing hinges on it. It's very likely that Nat would have gone to visit Govind anyway. Such coincidental meetings with people I'm thinking about or plan to visit happen to me all the time. Why not to Nat?

Another coincidence is during the massacre of the doctors in Singapore. David survives, by an extraordinary twist of fate. The way he survived actually happened to a real life doctor during that real life massacre so I don't regard it as a coincidence at all! I just made David into that anonymous doctor.

I am racking my brain to think of other blatant coincidences but cannot - if you find any more please mail me, and I'll comment on them here!

In short:

If the underlying premise of a book is to show that nothing happens be random; to show the vast, mysterious interconnectedness of all humans; to show that there is an intelligence behind all events that links and guides in ways beyond our understanding - then coincidences are a part of that mystery. Of Marriageable Age is this kind of a book. It was in itself a miracle birth.

Yes, I believe in God - though it's not a word I commonly use. I prefer Intelligence. I found faith when events began to occur in my life that were utterly inexplicable in human terms - coincidences too miraculous to explain, and which made me see passing events not as finalities in themselves but as pointers and learning opportunities and signposts on my way home. That was over 30 years ago and it's still happening. [back to top]