More Lahiri

I read about half of "Interpreter of Maladies" last night. It's very engrossing. So far the stories have been a mix of Indian and American settings with all sorts of issues involving cultural expectations, marriage, the class system, families, loss, etc. The title story is truly wonderful — with a rather brash Indian-American family coming into contact with a gentleman Indian tour guide. You can definitely see the same hand that penned "The Namesake."

Gogol the architect

Why does the narrator continue to refer to Gogol as Gogol, even after he changes his name to Nikhil? I thought maybe she was making a comment on the impossibility of changing your identity after a certain point in life, especially by just having a legal pronouncement made.

What do you think is the significance of Gogol being an architect? I always think of an architect as someone between an artist and an engineer. His dad was an engineer. And wasn't his grandpa an artist? There was a notion that Indian immigrants to American always went for the successful, scientific-type jobs — employment that provided for their families but didn't necessarily nurture the soul.

The real Gogol

I read Nikolai Gogol's "The Overcoat" because it played such a huge role in this novel. I'm a little stumped, though, about what the connections are between the two stories. There are common themes about names and compassion and self-identity. Did you read it? Any ideas?

One for The Road

This novel won the Pulitzer, but more importantly, Oprah has given it her seal of approval, so now we must read it. I read Cormac McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men" not too long and loved, loved, loved it, but it's the only book of his I have read.

In this one, there's a father-son story, a long journey and a whole catalog of post-apocalyptic horrors, including cannibals. Enjoy.

Love interests

The women in Gogol's life seemed to serve as milestones as he matured. What were your thoughts on the three love interests that we meet?

Small moments

Something I really enjoyed about "The Namesake" were the many small, seemingly mundane moments and details that carried great significance for the characters. Beginning with Ashima stepping into Ashoke's shoes before she's even met him. And then Ashima's address books, carefully recording every move in each family member's life.

Writing style

What did you think of Lahiri's writing style? Did you find it too impersonal, too matter-of-fact? Did it hinder your ability to understand or sympathize with the characters?

The New York Times reviewer said:

It is not a good sign that when Gogol exits his life story for the entire duration of his wife's love affair we hardly miss him. The reader has begun to suspect that, graceful and spare as Lahiri's prose is, the simply put does not always equal the deeply felt. How much steely equipoise, after all, can one novel stand? Lahiri is a supremely gifted writer, but at moments in "The Namesake" it feels as though we've descended from the great Russians to Nick Adams to the PowerPoint voice-over. "She orders a salad and a bouillabaisse and a bottle of Sancerre," goes the description of one of Gogol's dates. "He orders the cassoulet. She doesn't speak French to the waiter, who is French himself, but the way she pronounces the items on the menu makes it clear that she is fluent. It impresses him."

Male point of view

Although Ashima is the story's focus in the beginning, the main protagonist in "The Namesake" is Gogol. Here's what Lahiri said about writing from a male point of view:

In the beginning I think it was mainly curiosity. I have no brothers, and growing up, men generally seemed like mysterious creatures to me. Except for an early story I wrote in college, the first thing I wrote from the male point of view was the story "This Blessed House," in Interpreter of Maladies. It was an exhilarating and liberating thing to do, so much so that I wrote three stories in a row, all from the male perspective. It's a challenge, as well. I always have to ask myself, would a man think this? do this? I always knew that the protagonist of The Namesake would by a boy. The original spark of the book was the fact that a friend of my cousin in India had the pet name Gogol. I had wanted to write about the pet name–good name distinction for a long time, and I knew I needed the space of a novel to explore the idea. It's almost too perfect a metaphor for the experience of growing up as the child of immigrants, having a divided identity, divided loyalties, etc.

Do you think her male protagonist was convincing? Did you ever feel the author failed to capture that voice?