The Inheritance of Loss (Kiran Desai)
I hinted in my booker predictions that I wasn’t that fond of this novel. I suppose that’s partly because it’s so obviously a Booker novel that I find it all a little formulaic. There’s more than a hint of Rushdie and others have found echoes of Naipaul (although I’m not familiar with his work, so I’m not a reliable guide on that). Not that there’s anything wrong with being influenced by great novelists, of course.
There’s the classic picaresque Indian milieu (the foot of Mount Kanchenjunga) where a motley collection of misfits come to be divided by politics they don’t believe in or understand. A substantial portion of the book is set in the New York immigrant community, which are by far the weakest sections. The end is a the same time utterly predictable and silly.
The publishers are keen to tell us how much this is a novel to help us understand the lives of immigrants, and those ‘left behind’ and that’s noble and everything, but I find myself allergic to issue fiction. I remain impervious to David Hare’s argument in Obedience, Struggle and Revolt that political drama (or fiction) is somehow more valuable than ‘pure’ drama.
The novels I admire the most have very little, if anything, to do with politics. Of course, looking at how people are affected as the tide of history sweeps over them is certainly a worthy subject for fiction; one only has to think of the Prague sections of The Unbearable Lightness of Being to see that. Maybe this is just an attempt to do something similar that failed to resonate with me.
I think ultimately that I’m prejudiced against novels like this. I’m not keen on admitting that to myself, but there we are.
Comments
Leave a Reply
