![]() ![]() I enjoyed The Namesake because I felt the journey motif which is common to all cultures is what made the novel far superior to the short stories, which felt like sketches on ethnic culture in much the same way that the short stories from writers, like Aleichem, Babel, and Singer gave us insights into a different culture. I did return to Interpreter and reread it and did enjoy, but I prefer Lahiri the novelist to the short story writer. Here is an example of the two forms set in stark contrast: a filet mignon against a steak. The problem was not with the writer but with the reader's expectation of the form: novel versus short story. As the old adage goes in programming: the end-user is an idiot and that idiot was me. I had that knowledge because I had read a full-length, in depth display of the author's narrative power. When I went to Interpreter I couldn't get through it because it felt like I was being cheated, given the window display when I knew that there was more behind the counter. I had read The Namesake first and was spoiled by the experience. I'll be honest: didn't like Interpreter of Maladies on the first-go. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |