Great man theory

The article 'Good Businees, Bad men' (January 28) wrongly discusses negative aspects of two of the greatest creators of our times - Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. Artists may be excused their personality flaws on the pretext that their sphere of influence does not compare to the likes of the men mentioned in this article. These men created things that touched every life in the universe and unlike most nerds also figured out how to make money out of it. Why then impose the need for a pictureperfect personality on these great men? Why not just focus on the good? After all, it outweighs every flaw in their awesome personalities.

Tulika Mukerjee Saha, via email

D-Day, V-Day ?

Apropos Arati R Jerath's article 'Idol Politics' (January 21), the author says, 'By stoking her community's ingrained sense of aggrievement, Mayawati is falling back on her old politics of victimhood to consolidate her voter base. ' By saying this, the writer is alleging that the entire dalit community has a tendency to make unprovoked attacks, and that all dalits are belligerent by nature. This is ridiculous! The author, it seems, is prejudiced and biased. Although the Allahabad High Court upheld the decision of the Election Commission regarding Mayawati's statues, March 4 will be the decisive day, and will tell us whether the EC's decision influenced the electorates or not.

Dharmesh Kumar, via email

Critical revue

The Salman Rushdie controversy sadly eclipsed much of what could have been illuminating discourses on literature at the Jaipur Lit Fest. Plus, the lop-sided attention paid to English writers at such a festival is yet again a cause of righteous heartburn among vernacular writers, whose equally worthy compositions don't find similarly zealous responses. In this, CP Surendran (' Rushdie, Katju And The Laughing Line', Comment, January 28), has quite rightly referred to the shallow nature of book reviewers in the media. Most often lack any sort of profundity and reflect inadequate knowledge of the craft. They also lack necessary objectivity.

Sanjay Dev, via email