Monday, August 19, 2013

Les Misérables

My Rating: 

Method of Reading: Personally owned paperback novel, 1,201 pages and endnotes (HEADS UP—This thing is really really long and my review is going to match it)
Dates of Reading: March 31, 2013-August 8, 2013
Author: Victor Hugo
Publication Year: 1862
Recommended to: Jane Austen fans, those who enjoyed Dostoyevsky's work, Christian readers, and anyone who enjoys the movie/musical and has a strong passion for reading.
Quotes: WARNINGthe length and beauty of this book make me feel absolutely entitled to compile this lengthy (and shockingly, really abridged) list. There are many other selections of beautiful, meaningful, and entertaining writing I could have included here, but this is the absolute shortest list I could make.
   " are looking at a plain man and I am looking at a great man. Each of us may benefit'" (20).
   "The soul in darkness sins, but the real sinner is he who causes the darkness" (30).
   "Our society is governed by the precepts of Jesus Christ but is not yet imbued with them" (180).
   "He had, it seems, concluded, after the manner of saints and sages, that his first duty was not to himself" (209).
   "White is the ferocious enemy of white; if the lily could speak, how it would tear the dove to shreds.... Every virtue flows over into vice" (572).
   "...he blesses God for having bestowed on him those two riches which the rich so often lack  work, which makes a man free, and thought, which makes him worthy of freedom" (591).
   "...simply a book-ist" (592).
   "...for he was living now from tomorrow, and 'today' could be said scarcely to exist for him" (617).
   "Nothing is more dangerous than to stop working" (741).
   "To die for lack of love is terrible  it is the stifling of the soul" (804).
   "There are six of you, and I'm the public" (857).
   "The events to be related [here] belong to that order of vivid and dramatic happenings which historians sometimes pass over for lack of time and space. But it is here, we must insist, that the reality of life is to be found, the stir and tremor of human beings" (891).
   "Whether it's men or events, the run-of-the-mill is not enough; you need geniuses in terms of men, and revolutions in terms of events" (922).
   "This is a bad moment for speaking the word 'love'; nevertheless, I do speak it, and glory in it. Love is the future" (942).
   "Was there any such thing as 'foreign war'?" (950).
   "You're aiming at that sergeant, Enjolras, but you're not looking at him" (1013).
   "There are people who observe the rules of honour as we do the stars, from a very long way off" (1050).
   "The pupil dilates in darkness and in the end finds light, just as the soul dilates in misfortune and in the end finds God" (1078).
   "To love is an accomplishment" (1140).
   "Predestination does not always offer a straight road to the predestined" (1142).
   "Until some deeper comprehension throws a new light upon our understanding of these things, human society away will always be divided into two types of men, Abel and Cain" (1159).
   "To die is nothing; but it is terrible not to live" (1197).
Movie: One that is brand new (A very good, (mostly) live-filmed version of the highly successful 1980 musical), plus a smattering of old ones.

Wikipedia Link:érables


My View: Les Misérables and I were virtually fighting a war for a while there... my mom gave me the book for Easter and I started reading it immediately, not remembering that as soon as a I went back to school two days later reading for pleasure would effectively end until summer. When I came back for summer vacation I was dead-set on finishing it as quickly as possible... and then spent a lot of time reading To Kill A Mockingbird and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close instead. Anyway, it took several very long months to conquer this beast of a book, but I finally finished it.

   This means I am now WAY less like this:
And WAY more like this:

Because I don't have to be thinking about this anymore:
Instead, I can be thinking cool jazz like this:

After all… “I’d far sooner have [Maruis] in love with a wench than with revolution” (873). ;)

   As the introduction and length of my quotations section indicate, it will be incredibly difficult to distill my thoughts on this book into some bite-sized discussion-starters here. But I will do my best and just record some very basic commentary about my thoughts. Keep in mind that I come to this book with strong biasesI love theater and the Les Misérables musical and movie, and I also enjoy the French language. On top of all of this I love a good story of redemption (not revenge... redemption). These, among other personal slants, fated me to really like this book. 
   No matter how rudely it treated me.
   SO: Thought #1 is about the excellent wordplay throughout this book. I am reading a translation of course (sorry, my French is NOT that good), but the translation is beautifully done and I think preserves much of the author’s intended rhythm and mood. Norman Denny, the translator, included a lovely introduction in this copy describing his tireless work to this end. With a rudimentary understanding of French and a good grasp of English, any reader can sense Hugo’s voice in this writing. I especially loved his play on words about the "Friends of the ABC" and in his frequent play with the informal French "you," tu and the more formal "you," vous.
   Perhaps the reason there is so much creative input is because Hugo writes what he is passionate about. Very noticeably, he spends a lot of time focusing on the history and people of a city he adores: Paris. This provides a compelling study of humanity by looking into the petri dish of nineteenth-century France (and gives history nerds like myself some great historical soil to dig through).  Clearly proud of the boldness and intricacies of Parisian life, he even asserts that, “It would be a mistake to suppose that one can wander [through] Paris without ever meeting an adventure” (790). He even finds exquisite beauty in the haunting statue carcass Gavroche lives in as well as in the plight and culture of the usually disdained urchin child.
   Or maybe the real reason Hugo’s writing is so passionate is because he writes about whatever interests him even when it has absolutely no place whatsoever in the plot (and really I don’t feel like that is overstatement). Hugo includes a lot of personal commentary and opinion, which he often tries to disguise as absolutely necessary and relevant sidebars. While some of this is very interesting and does advance one’s understanding of the story, some of it really does bore and frustrate me as a reader eager to hear what is happening to my characters. In my copy, actually, the translator chose to take some tangents (like twenty pages about the workings and virtues of a convent and the development of thieves’ slang-language) out of the brick itself and staple it into the back. I feel like he could have done the same for much of Hugo’s Waterloo commentary and detailing of the Paris sewer system. These tangents are surprisingly beautiful… but they’re still tangents. Basically, this book would never have been published this way today, but it’s fun seeing inside a writer’s unedited head. It also allows for a lot of hilarity.
   Next, into some character discussion! The book has a more cohesive storyline, like an epic, than adaptations. More time and space is spent on developing themes than characters, but that’s okay because there’s enough space in this giant of a book to discuss a thousand themes in great depth and also allow for strong character development. The characters are winners, written very realistically with even the best having flaws. An excellent example of this is Jean Valjean. Although he lives a fantastic life, it isn’t implausible and he has as many personal shortcomings as anyone else. In adaptations, I feel he is overly perfect, bordering on being unbelievably unswerving in his goodness (depending on whose portrayal you see).  I also like that adaptation Valjean is an endearingly unwitting martyr in contrast to the book Valjean who is totally aware of his own virtue, annoyingly so. That the canonical version of this character struggles so much with moral decisions and still makes the right ones, though, is more impressive than that the pure-to-the-core movie version, for instance, makes good choices. I like both of these presentations of Valjean, but have difficulty reconciling them.
   Then there’s Marius. Ah, dear Marius, what will we do with you? I found Marius too wishy-washy for my taste. He and Cosette seem infatuated, not in love. In the popular fandom debate about Marius as a revolutionary versus Marius as a lover (there’s clearly negligible textual support for the former from a purely book-supported stance), I’d have to say I feel he is unsuited for either in the long term because he’s so hot-headed and impulsive. I adore how much he adores Cosette (the heart-pound-inducing reflections on love in Book V Chapter IV… swoon) but find his general immaturity distracting. It even makes me call into doubt the veracity of his feelings for the Lark (Oops, have I struck some nerves?). No matter which version of him you study—film, stage, book—he’s not the brightest guy around. But in this version, the inclusion of his mixed devotion to Thénardier makes him seem especially foolish, given that his father clearly would not have wanted him to run around chasing a man such as that scoundrel to “repay” him. I had been told, prior to reading, that Marius was smarter in this original form than in adaptations and for me this simply wasn’t true. The most paining example I can think of is his habit of becoming stuck in his own head at pivotal moments when his withdrawal seems more like cowardice than thoughtfulness, prime instances being in the tenement when he cannot pull the trigger to summon Javert and in the barricade when he withdraws to sit on the curb. I know we’re all prone to getting pulled into our own minds like this, but usually I feel it’s because a character/person is being excessively thoughtful. He seems locked in without really filling that time with thought.
   Now don’t hate me, because I do think there is some redemption for Marius. He grows up at the very end, in his confrontation with Thénardier. There, he clearly sees the scourge of a man found in this crook, takes a stand for himself, and makes a decision I find wise, virtuous, and final. This single scene makes up for a lot of stupid leading up to it.
   There are, of course, several other characters who I love throughout the book: Marius’s dedicated grandfather, the little urchin Gavroche in his kind devilishness, and so on. However, I think perhaps my favorite character is Éponine. She surpasses Cosette in goodness because she is sweet and innocent, despite a situation that should breed a character entirely to the contrary. The inclusion of her person carries one of the book’s greatest motifs: the innate goodness Hugo believes is found in everyone. She even advances several other favorite themes of mine that I haven’t the space to explain in great depth, such as the values of courage, perseverance, forgiveness, gratitude, and family. Above all, she captures the natural virtue in all love. The love she gives, so absent in what she receives from others, is the most touching in this entire story, in my opinion. She’s like what Rosaline would have done had she really loved Romeo when he scampered off with Juliet (imagine how much Shakespeare could’ve made off of that plot twist), and that pitiful, unrequited but unfettered, unknowing love of total devotion is what is so beautiful about her. To wrap her up in a Biblical passage I’m sure Hugo knew and loved, “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13, New Living Translation).
   There are oodles of characters I’d like to talk about, but how about we just skip to the ones whose names were most frequently doodled with hearts and smileys in my copy of the book: the Barricade Boys. How can you not love them? Hugo clearly does, and according to at least one adaptation, they look like this:
And this is their best little buddy/errand boy:

So clearly, I love them. As a Tumblr user once wrote, “how do you explain to your parents that you want to marry dead fictional French revolutionaries without first names?” (Les Misérables Confessions). I feel your pain, Tumblr person. Never have I seen an author care to lovingly flesh out so many characters in what he had to know would usually be seen as one solid bloc. It makes each man important when he is lost, and provides many small triumphs and victories that truly matter in a place of so much sacrifice. In short, the cost of this barricade is felt because of Hugo's writing. It makes me wonder which man Hugo most related to, which revolutionaries were based on real men he knew, whether the ABC Society was based on anyone real, and whether he would more respect a man like Marius who stayed out of the fray or a man like Enjolras who created it. If only Hugo were still around to be interviewed on this.
   Hard as it may be to believe, this book contains humor, adorable sidebars, anxiety-inducing cliffhangers, and adventure. And amidst all of this, Hugo found room to incorporate meaning. Briefly, my favorite "messages" are:
  1. The value of moderation (Hugo none too subtly argues that every value can be a stain if found alone and in excess. Everything good or bad, this work proposes, must be judiciously balanced by an opposing force. In the book's own words about this balance of extremes, "Conscience is the highest justice" (188), "[Valjean's] conscience: that is to say God" (210), "Gradualness is the whole policy of God" (734). So justice/rightness = conscience = God = gradualness/moderation.)
  2. Love is the ultimate good (This is the final message Jean Valjean imparts to his adopted, most beloved daughter and her worthy husband. It is also how his own journey toward greatness begins. The Bishop who turns Valjean's life around shows him the greatest love possible. He never asks the distressed ex-convict for his hidden name, but insists that this man, like any other, ought to be called brother. These and many other passages make love out to be the most incredible of all personal definitions, a beauty one should seek to embody.)
  3. The great wonder of redemption can come from worry, tragedy, and mistreatment (The glory, strength, and power of a converted heart are on full display here. A changed, new heart, "blinded by the radiance of virtue" is lifted above all else in Hugo's writing (116). This is beautifully displayed in the parallel tracks Valjean literally and Marius figuratively take in their grandest rebirths: Valjean is put in a coffin, buried, and removed from his tomb in a Christlike, covert ceremony. Years after, Marius feels as if he passed through a tomb of his own and emerged unscathed when he escaped the barricade with Valjean's saving aid. Redemption by suffering in the place of others is held above all other forms of rebirth, because "the most godlike of human bounties [is] expiation on behalf of others" (490).)   (PS. Another parallel that really floored me is that between Valjean and Thénardier. Marius spends a good chunk of his time searching for the "angelic" crook who dragged his father from a battlefield. Only a few chapters later, he takes up the cause of exiling Jean Valjean from his home on the understanding that this angel is really crooked... not knowing that Valjean was the one who dragged Marius himself from his own battlefield. How's that for large-scale chiastic structuring?)
   Now a short note about my opinion concerning differences between adaptations. Some book things that are cut for adaptions hurt to see missing (i.e. Le Cabuc, the gorgeous exposition about the bishop before Valjean arrives, leaving out some details surrounding Enjolras and Grantaire's death scene). There are some changes made between the book and the musical or movie, though, that I really like. For instance, I adore the change of scenery for Valjean's last days. In the movie, we hear his final breaths in the silent, contemplative arena of the convent/chapel, surrounded by utter poverty and simplicity. In the book, he is at home in his simple apartment, writing a last-minute letter at his desk. The movie version, I feel, is a far more fitting place for a man like Valjean to choose to spend the end of his life (I don't recall where he dies in the stage musical, or if the location is very directly communicated in this version at all). Your thoughts?
   Also, a question for y’all (fans of the book, musical, movie, whatever): Why is Javert so satisfied with the idea of Jean Valjean killing him with a knife in basically every Les Mis incarnation? In the movie/musical, when Valjean appears to be on the verge of slaying his tormenter with a knife, the inspector says, “How right you should kill with a knife." Also in the book he makes a comment about the appropriateness of this weapon. Why does he feel that using a knife is the most appropriate way for an ex-con to kill? Is it simply more base/brutal/painful than a gun? I almost feel like Javert would find killing with a knife to be more honorable than killing with a gun because it makes the job more personal (like how a lot of people have trouble accepting the use of drone weapons because they don't force anyone to deal with the emotional realities of killing... there are few ways to make that shock more real for the killer than to make him use a knife in his work) and so he would find a convict like Valjean incapable of having the valor to use one. Anyway, this is a line of Javert's that has always bothered me and I’d love some input on it.
   Overall, this book is truly a masterpiece and a rewarding read.
So grab that brick...
Your Bibliomaniac

Bibliographic info:
  • Barricade Boy actors. Digital image. Wyrdlam. N.p., Apr. 2013. Web. 22 Aug. 2013
  • Beyoncé's hair. Digital image. Mashable. N.p., 8 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.
  • First of All, We Need Some Light. Tumblr, n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
  • "Friends of the ABC." Wikipedia. WikiMedia, Inc., n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
  • Gavroche. Digital image. Texts from Gavroche. Tumblr, n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
  • Gretchen Wieners GIF. Digital image. Reply GIF. N.p., 2012. Web. 29 Aug. 2013
  • Hugo, Victor. Les Misérables. Trans. Norman Denny. New York: Penguin Group, 2012. Print.
  • John. New Living Translation. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2004. Bible Hub. Web. 22 Aug. 2013. .
  • Les Misérables Confessions. Tumblr, n.d. Web 19 Aug. 2013.
  •  Les Misérables. Dir. Tom Hooper. Perf. Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried. Universal Studios, 2012. DVD.
  • Mean Girls on the barricade. Digital image. Durward Discussion. N.p., 3 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

The Phantom Tollbooth

My Rating: 

Method of Reading: Personally owned paperback novel, 256 pages
Dates of Reading: August 12, 2013-August 16, 2013
Author: Norton Juster
Publication Year: 1961
Recommended to: Harry Potter, The Magic Treehouse Series, A Wrinkle in Time, and other youth fantasy novel fans.
Quotes: Just lots of funny, pretty writing.
Movie: Yeah, but not one anybody has ever heard of, and from way back in 1970.... Which is way sad, I could totally see this being a fantastic movie if somebody did it right! I've seen the play at a local theater--the book did not translate well to the stage. While the troupe I saw perform it was good, the script itself was weak and poorly organized.

Wikipedia Link:

My View: The manifesto of Juster's work seems to be this: "You must never feel badly about making mistakes... as long as you take the trouble to learn from them... [because] whatever we learn has a purpose" (233). The book is a twisting and fairly long journey (considering that it is a children's book) from ignorance to wisdom for bored young Milo, launching him into a world of excitement he never noticed he lived in. I like to reread this quick book every few years because it encapsulates a lot of what I wrote about a philosophy of mine, which I described in the post just previous to this one--learning is an ongoing process with immeasurable value. As this book constantly reminds readers, as I neglected to do in my post about being well-read, there are millions of ways to learn besides reading. Juster's book wisely points out over and over again that you can be smart with words (Azaz would love readers, authors, editors, and lyricists), with numbers (the Mathemagician surely has a special place in his heart for scientists and math teachers), with sounds (Music Theory peeps out there? Please apply to the Soundkeeper for summer employment), with systematic thought (my philosophy professors would get along well with the Princess of Pure Reason), or with any number of other specialties, and preferably with a combination of them all.
   I recall someone once saying that "...the world's greatest feats were accomplished by people not smart enough to know they were 'impossible.'" As Juster echoes in Tollbooth, " many things are possible just as long as you don't know they're impossible" (247).
   I'd like to close with the wise words recently delivered to us by the questionably qualified Christopher Ashton Kutcher... "The sexiest thing in the entire world is being really smart, thoughtful, and generous." Let's put that in a format that seven-year-olds reading Phantom Tollbooth could read: There's nothing more exciting than someone who uses his or her mind to create a marvelous world. Who would've thought that sentence that popped out of Kelso's mouth would have painted a thought shaped by Norton Juster in 1961?

Your Bibliomaniac

Bibliographic info:
  • Ashton Kutcher Acceptance Speech - Teen Choice Awards 2013. Perf. Ashton Kutcher. YouTube. N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.
  • Juster, Norton. "My Accidental Masterpiece." NPR. N.p., 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.
  • Juster, Norton. The Phantom Tollbooth. New York: Dell Yearling, 2001. Print.
  • The Phantom Tollbooth cover. Digital image. The Literary Amnesiac. N.p., 29 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.
  • "The Phantom Tollbooth (film)." Wikipedia. WikiMedia, Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.
  • "The Phantom Tollbooth." SparkNotes. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.
  • "The Phantom Tollbooth." Wikipedia. WikiMedia, Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

The well-read person.

This week I had the pleasure of eating lunch with a friend whom I had not seen all summer. Our conversation flowed easily and lasted about three and a half hours, when I had expected we'd struggle to hit two. This friend is a classmate I have taken real joy in knowing for the past year, but Monday was possibly the first time we discussed books together. I was thrilled to discover in him literary opinions and tastes happily similar to mine, but different enough to keep our discourse interesting. Some of what he's read lately sounded fascinating and I added still more books to my To-Read list during the course of our meeting (and a couple of them, such as Jack Kerouac's The Dharma Bums, are being put straight on top).

I rarely get the chance to hear anyone discuss books the way he does. Many people are accomplished readers, but often peruse only the most popular books at the top of the NYT's Best Seller list or stick to beach reads--regardless of whether or not they are at the beach. More broadly, a lot of readers are experts on one or two genres, time periods, or authors they have become comfortable with, but their discussion of what they read often suggests they're in a (dreaded) reading rut. These people, at least, still read for the pleasure of it; there are some who read with maniacal intensity, and seek to talk about books as if reading is an event to be discussed like a competition, not an experience that feels unfinished if not shared with someone. While all of these readers gain something from how they read (entertainment, talking points, an education), I was excited about how this friend understands reading, in a way that fits none of these descriptions. He reads because he loves the variety of lessons he can get out of the journeys books contain and how every time he interacts with a text, he sets off fireworks the author rigged long before the book fell into his hands, adding his own color and direction to their blasts.

My friend reads books in different languages from different genres, with different authors and styles. He's a fan of gothic poetry, Dostoyevsky and Virginia Woolf, books on politics, and histories. He enjoyed some of Shakespeare's works in high school but found The Catcher in the Rye too negative and isn't afraid to say it. He remembers his favorite childhood books, some of which are my old favorites (Because of Winn-Dixie, Tale of Despereaux) and some of which I never attached to (the Boxcar Children series), and even recalls bringing Crime and Punishment to the playground in fifth grade thinking he could read it (he says he got through two pages). A literary hipster (and really, a hipster in every other way too), he still likes reading anything just outside of the pale that is good enough to be more mainstream.

Talking to him the other day, I realized what makes good literary friends like him so rare and so precious: he is one of the few people I know who is a truly well-read person. I think a lot of people have lost sight of the value of being well-read, and even of the term's meaning. My favorite definition of the title comes from the Collins English Dictionary. They define being well-read as, "having read widely and intelligently; erudite." Having never stumbled across the word "erudite" before, I looked up "erudition" and loved its definition, too (this time from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): "deep, extensive learning." These two definitions together have a great beauty to me. They emphasize that reading--whether you read a nonfiction book, poetry, or a novel; whether its from a series or genre you already enjoy or is meant to be a new challenge, a foray into the unknown charged by immense curiosity at what part of you will be unleashed by something wholly new; whether you're reading something strictly assigned, passionately recommended, or randomly stumbled upon; whether you are reading something age-appropriate, something just out of your current intellectual grasp, something that you may never achieve substantial understanding of, or something you mastered years ago but want to revisit--reading is about an author's traps facilitating a reader's learning. In my opinion, anyway.

In my experience, those who become well-read don't do it to satisfy a goal of being so. In fact, it is difficult to really establish what "well-read" means (Exhibits A and B) and my borrowed definitions are certainly not perfect. Instead, a well-read person develops independently of any agenda, of their own will, advancing to a point in their literary careers where their meaningful reading history is of such great depth and breadth that no other term can be appropriately used for them. To know a well-read person, then, is not just a blessing when it comes to literary discussion. While book-specific dialogue is certainly interesting with my well-read friend, his personal qualities that have led him to become this way are also the characteristics that make him a great person otherwise: curiosity (especially about other people and cultures), a relish for new thrills and adventure, compassion, great respect for others, thoughtfulness, eloquence, humility, diligence in understanding any issue before he forms an opinion on it, patience, and much more. When I think of the people I know and have known in my life who I could consider well-read, they all have most if not all of these characteristics.

A well-read person has accomplished something great, without planning it on the way there and without knowing it when they arrive (if, of course, it's even something you can "arrive" at). And what they've read has introduced them to new worlds and unlocked so many hidden views of this one. It is not common to find such people, and it is one of a Bibliomaniac's greatest pleasures to find them.

Passionate as always,
Your Bibliomaniac

*Avi Arad is the founder of Marvel Studios.

Bibliographic info:
  • "I Think Well-read People - the World is Open to Them." Brainy Quote. BookRags Media Network, n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.
  • Nelson, Amanda. "What Does It Mean to Be Well Read?" Book Riot. N.p., 10 July 2012. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.
  • "What Does It Mean to Be Well-read?" Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! Inc., n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Facebook's social marketing IS relevant!

Today I found out that Facebook's [annoying] ads are actually useful!

I've been dying to read Mindy Kaling's new book of memoirs, Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns) since it came out last fall. Not only was she hilarious as Kelly Kapoor on The Office (best evidence that could be found on YouTube here), but she also wrote and directed several episodes of the show and has a new show of her own show, The Mindy Project (which has gotten great reviews). Clearly an intelligent and witty woman, I'm excited to read her observations of daily life.

When I saw that had the book narrated by none other than the comedienne herself, I thought maybe I'd give it a try. Has anyone out there had good (or bad) experiences with audiobooks, or with Audible? I haven't listened to an audiobook since I was about six so I'd like to hear some older readers' thoughts of the experience.

Your Bibliomaniac

  • "Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns)." Audible Inc., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2013. .
  • "Kelly Kapoor Is Awesome." YouTube. N.p., 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 1 Aug. 2013. .
  • "Mindy Kaling." Wikipedia. WikiMedia, Inc., n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2013. .