write to win

The editor's dilemma: to be or not to be a vigilante?

How far should an editor go in telling a writer what’s ‘right’ and what’s ‘wrong’ with the story?

A young man sees a young woman. He falls in love with her, despite never having spoken to her. Well, Romeo did it, and he has been immortalised for it. Why can’t a young man in India pull the same stunt?

Like Romeo, he pursues her. Unlike Juliet, she pushes him away continuously. He is upset about this and calls her disgusting and deceitful and all sorts of other, uncomplimentary things. When she gets pregnant she turns back to him, for some reason, and he is able to show his superheroic side by helping out the poor damsel in distress, while at the same time, making sure she rues her decision to ever reject him in the first place.

As an editor, I’m faced by stories like this all the time. Someone has obviously put his or her heart and soul into writing this book, and has given it to me in the hope that I will polish it up grammatically and hand it back, sparkling and ready to go.

As an editor, that’s all I’m expected to do, you might say. At the most, I might flag up a character who changes names, or one who talks more like a runaway from a Shakespeare play set than the others, but passing judgment on what is or is not “politically correct” is not what any author wants from me.

How far the editor's writ run?

Or is it? An editor, at the end of the day, is a human being after all, and an important role that she plays (for more often than not, it seems to be a she) is to function as an unbiased reader for the author.  The editor can tell the author, perhaps better than more biased readers like friends or family can, whether a story works or not. After all, that’s what really distinguishes one of us from Microsoft Word – the ability to really make sense of and engage with the text we’re working with.

But how can you keep yourself from getting your own politics and emotions muddled with what you’re reading? Reading fiction is, ideally, an immersive activity, something that sets you thinking at the same time that it pulls you away from the world around you. For a book to work, I believe, it mustn’t offend you so horribly that you’re putting it down every few seconds and going “but that’s just not right!”

Given how the attitudes enshrined in popular culture – in our books, TV shows, music and movies – influence and have been shown to have a powerful effect on their audience, can I really let something like my hypothetical example slip by without a little warning?

As an editor, you’re allowed to make it clear to an author that some element of a story isn’t working, and if it’s something like the reductive portrayal of a certain kind of group, I feel that it’s imperative that you point it out. A lot of the time, the author is unconscious of how it looks, being so consumed by the creative process. Other times, they disagree, some more vehemently than others, and we move on.

Wrong vs Right

But with pointing out “what’s wrong” in this context, a whole other can of worms gets opened. Who am I, really, to decide what’s “wrong” about castigating a pregnant girl? Am I not operating a little like a vigilante, using my superpowers (grammatically charged ones) to operate outside of the law, forcing my morals onto someone else’s manuscript? Am I not being a censor board?

I’m sure many of my fellow editors have come across this question. What sets us apart from readers of a published work is that we have the power, however slight, to change something before it goes out into the wider world. Obviously the author has the final vote on whether to alter things, but just the chance of making oneself heard, nay, the certainty that you will be heard gives me, at least, the drive to point out what seems “wrong” or prejudiced, or downright regressive.

So I will put in my comment, exercise my right to use Microsoft Word’s handy little box, and tell the writer, “Hey, I don’t think it’s cool that your character harangues a girl for going off with another guy and calls her disgusting. Especially since he’s obviously urban, educated and kind of progressive. Not to mention that I, as an urban, educated, female reader, am supposed to like him.”

Or something a little more sophisticatedly worded than that.

I don’t think Batman ever angsts about whether or not he’s doing the right thing by stepping outside of the law to pin “bad elements” down. Being a vigilante implies a certain derring-do, a disregard for what other people might think of as “not minding your own business.” It is an editor’s business, I think, to point out things that look prejudiced, or unseemly, or downright uncalled for. But once done, the vigilante can retire, put the cape away. It’s up to the cops to hold the Joker, after all. If the cops don’t think he’s a bad deal, well, that’s not really Batman’s business any more, is it?

Except it kind of is and that’s why I’m glad I’m just an editor, not Batman.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.


In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.


Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.


The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.


The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.