Damon Galgut, In a Strange Room

Honestly, I can't call myself a traveler. The three years I spent commuting in Bangalore sapped enough from me to live on campus thereupon. Running long distances for fitness is one matter but hikes spread over days, weeks and months is quite another. Now am uncomfortable with hikes. I just can't come to terms with the living outdoors for days together. Unfortunately, I don't even know why I feel so. This novel by Damon Galgut is a Man Booker Prize finalist which revolves around traveling on foot with no solid itinerary. The concept is alien to me, of course I know of it but I don't relate to it in any way. In spite of this the book has got me thinking.

Here is a very easy read in simple language at 180 pages. It is reviewed as a work of great depth. It consists of three short stories with travels in Africa, Europe and India. In my understanding this is a story of a loner trying to connect but failing to do so in all three of the short stories.

The writer jumps between first and third person very often. I couldn't fully understand why he does this. Perhaps I was reading quickly to return it at the library where it was recalled. In the first story at least I had an interpretation. Here Damon, the protagonist shares his name with the author, meets Reiner and their journey together seems to me like a marriage. Their interaction seems so much like husband and wife. Taking this as cue I imagined the first person narration to be the voice of a helpless child. Helpless because the child can't take any active step to helping the relationship. The second story had the urgency and desperation of being in love for the first time. Damon runs all over violating immigration laws of a foreign country. The sequencing of these two stories is different, the first story reminds me of marriage while the second reminds me of falling in love. Usually, it'd be the other way round. Of course, another point of view would be that Damon found love again. These two stories were apparently written years and years ago while the third was a recent addition. This third story seems to be Damon's attempt at social service to alleviate his pain, alas happiness is not his fate. He takes an addict to Goa to help with her rehab but things don't go as planned. This addict is steadily working towards suicide to avoid old age. Damon, the traveler, seems to be destiny's child. Things keep happening to him, bad things that too and there is little he can do.

No tale ends well for Damon. There is a sense of hope, a light at the end of the tunnel in every story but they are all false. The book seems very very depressing. Why would someone want to write a novel with almost no happiness in it? I felt sad reading it, this review is not happy either. Surely it must have been hard on the writer to undertake this exercise. Why would Damon Galgut do this to himself?

In some ways I felt this novel was like the experience during the course of a PhD in a foreign land, perhaps any individual research experience is the same. With my wife the ride has been smoother, I at least interact intimately, not superficially, with someone. I meet a few doctoral students from India at my university who are desperate to connect with someone, friend or love. Research has no clearcut road to a well-defined destination oftentimes, one doesn't know where he or she is headed. The individual just travels down a certain path at a crossroad he thinks will lead him to El Dorado (publication, graduation). After a while it could easily be back to the same crossroads. The supervisor, other students in the lab if there are any may or may not connect with his idea. The protagonist in this book in this novel has similar experiences in his short stories.

I earlier said there are no positives in this novel, maybe I have to revisit this. This book teaches us to keep going. Damon doesn't stop. After each story I wondered how Damon picked himself. The novel doesn't give any clear indication (I think) of the time between the three stories but however long it may have been he picks himself, packs his bags and sets out on another journey. After Damon smuggles the suicidal addict back to South Africa he completes his travel in India. I guess no matter what, the journey has to be undertaken.

Peter Carey, Parrot and Olivier in America

Peter Carey is in the running for an unprecedented third Booker Prize this year. Having read a few other winners, longlisted and shortlisted novels of this prize I think this has what it takes to win. In fact, I liked the novel so much I wish I'd taken notes as I read to do a better job with this review. Am sure to read it again in future.

My lack of awareness of Alexis de Tocqueville eliminated the possibility of familiarity with his publications. Parrot, etc. is based on Tocqueville's visit to America which lead, subsequently, to classic treatises on democracy. If Carey were to win this year it would lead me to believe that he has discovered a Booker Prize winning formula; select a character from history and retell the story under the guise of fiction. 'The True History of the Kelly Gang', which I must must must get to soon, appears to be cast in a similar mould. The reader must forgive my insolence for I type, merely, in jest and, it absolutely must be added, that my first perusal of this novel, in its rather unusual typeface, cannot be thorough but was thoroughly rewarding. (I like the structure of the previous sentence!)

I've read very little historical fiction. Some recent ones are Amitav Ghosh's "Sea of Poppies" and David Mitchell's "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet". In comparison to these novels "Parrot, etc." is unconventional. Carey doesn't bother with setting up a plot. Nothing much is at stake for the characters in this novel, there is nothing they have to get to in any urgency. The characters don't experience the pressures and obstacles protagonists usually do in other fictional works. Both Parrot and Olivier live within their French societal norms. Parrot is Olivier's servant. To me this book is about their minds, the thougths of two individuals separated by class in nineteenth century France. On one hand we have Parrot whose life is one mangled by art, war, servitude, escape, exploitation and, finally, entrepreneurship. On the other hand, we have a French noble who can't pack his luggage for voyages he seems to be making often in this book, doesn't bathe or dress himself, can't even write legibly but undertakes the task of understanding the penitentiary system and, later on, democracy in the newly formed America.

There are sections of the novel which I love. One takes place when the heroes visit a Frenchman's library for a copy of 'Tartuffe'. It's Carey's description of the library and the wine that put me in the library with the characters. I could picture the library, smell the books and taste the wine. Another takes place when Parrot is on vacation in New York and has nothing to do which frustrates him. Parrot looks around describing New York, explaining the people he sees who are very very busy while he has no job, nothing with which to occupy himself. His regret for his present disposition, his regret for having neglected his skill for engraving are killing him. I feel like that so often these days. Then there are the pages in the book describing Olivier's thoughts when he is in love. It isn't new, for sure, but the context of him not liking US, read Olivier's thoughts on the Fourth of July celebrations for example, and still willing to accept the US for love provide interesting points of conflict to reflect upon. The first person narration in this book is more effective in comparison to any other book as it truly opens the narrator's mind to the reader. Two separate narrators also was a very good idea here because Parrot uses America to his advantage but Olivier is not comfortable here. This brings out two different points of view, one who needs America to raise himself and the other who has already has everything he could ever want.

The book falls into traps of regular Hollywood/Bollywood scripts and popular fiction, which I thought I wouldn't like, but it is how it comes out of them that I liked. Parrot realizes that he has been cheated of credit in published books and doesn't go out seeking revenge, rather uses the same person to set up a business. Olivier doesn't bring Amelia to France after all that happens. Master and servant don't unite as a conclusion to the book.

The conclusion of the novel with Olivier's strong criticism of democracy is in line with Carey's opinion of us being dumbed down over the years. Olivier blames it on democracy here where "the public square will be occupied by an uneducated class who will not be able to quote a line from Shakespeare." Olivier adds "art will be produced to suit the market" and that people will derive culture "from the newspapers". Carey seems to be blaming democracy for our stupidity here, that's the way I read it. In another piece on the Internet he is quoted as saying "consuming cultural junk.....is completely destructive of democracy." I have, for nearly a decade now, been skeptical of popular opinion. Now am also not swayed much by popular fiction, in books and movies. Why should it be that majority is correct? Why did people want 'Avatar' to win the Oscar for best picture and not 'The Hurt Locker'? Why is it that popular fiction almost never wins literary awards? Why aren't we taught to understand paintings or sculpture but end up admiring well-sculpted bodies of celebrities? Why is Classical music not understood or heard by the majority? These are definitely food for thought.

David Mitchell, The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet

David Mitchell, at just forty-one years of age, I understand is an accomplished novelist. His earlier works have been very well received; shortlisted and longlisted, twice each for the Booker Prize. In 2003 he was one of Granta's Best Young British novelists under-35 years of age. His earlier works are supposedly very complicated in structure while here he has a conventional simpler chronological structure. "Thousand Autumns..." was on the longlist for the Man Booker Prize 2010. It didn't proceed to the shortlist.

So much for author profiling let me get to the novel. It is written in five parts, in present tense. Large consensus has been that the first part is hard to get through but the rest of the book is fast paced. I mostly agree though I didn't find the first part entirely boring. Sure nothing much happens in the progression of the plot but it does provide a perspective of life in Dejima. Usually I associate white men in the east with being in the driver's seat but now forgot it wasn't so in Japan. The first part tells us how devoid of power the chief of Dejima is, familiarizes us with nearly every white man on the artifical island and makes us realize Jacob de Zoet's integrity is his only weapon. The second part shifts from Dejima to Japan. The novel now moves into territory I am very familiar with, it's written like a thriller. There is an superb chapter with a conference on medicinal advancements in the west and how Japan needs to progress by sending Japanese to other lands, improving military, etc. I enjoyed the second part very much, so much so that my mind starting scheming the rest of the book as Jacob leading Orito's rescue very very actively. I started visualizing Jacob stealing himself out of Dejima, in disguise, incognito, hiring more Japanese Ninja or Samurai and blasting his way through Mount Shiranui to reach the Shrine on top and save Orito. All this, of course, happening in a Tarantino-isque way . This is where Mitchell took me by surprise. In the fourth part we are introduced to a new character, Captain Penhaligon of a British ship, Phoebus. The name of the ship, its link to the story in the novel, the actual story that takes place a decade later, the story of Captain Penhaligon's struggle with gout, his memories of his wife, his son and his own career make him my favorite character in this novel. David Mitchell uses the protection of Dejima from a British ship as a mask to solve Aibagawa's problem, take care of Enomoto and the magistracy. That the main obstacle is solved in the backdrop of swashbuckling action, diplomacy and a match of Go was so so so new to me.

I also like the various distractions Mitchell sets up right through the novel. It's a technique I am inspired to use, if I ever write in future, because it breaks the standard sequence of set-up followed by process-of-rescue used in most movies and books. David Mitchell introduces redundant characters right through with their own stories which are interesting in their own way. I believe he does this to open, in the readers' minds, a multitude of possibilities the novel can take. Every character with his or her history need not play any role in the progression of the story. There is a chapter in first person by a slave, there is the monkey named William Pitt, lots of other animals floating around, there are backgrounds for every white man in Dejima, there's a six-hundred year old wizard or some such etc. many of which are eventually unused or used in unconventional ways. However, while reading about them I was continuously constructing the narrative trajectory in my head, but Mitchell doesn't take the conventional route which I just love.

The writing style is new to me. It is written in present tense. The dialgoue is often interrupted, several times on many occassions, to set the ambience of the location through visual and sound. I had to read some passages of dialogue twice to build the complete mental picture, being the jobless person I am it was perfectly fine.

The very little historical fiction that I have read I have enjoyed very much and this book is no exception. I'd have liked to see this proceed to the shortlist.

Salman Rushdie, Haroun and the Sea of Stories (badly written!)

I've known of this title ever since I have been reading Rushdie's novels but didn't know it to be a children's book. From what I'd read of Rushdie it seemed obvious to me that he'd only write for adults. I wasn't planning on reading any more Rushdie this year but once I got know of this being a children's book I couldn't resist. The first author for whom I took out my dictionary has written a children's book I could not resist. My wife reads what I suggest and I have not suggested Rushdie to her yet. 'Haroun and the Sea of Stories' could prove to be a good introduction to Rushdie for her, I thought. Now that I have read it I think this is the perfect book to start Rushdie with. Every bit of his style is in this book, only in simpler language.

There is a way Rushdie approaches this book which I now think I understand. In a children's book the characters are either black or white, and am not referring to race here. Thinking of all the works that fall into a similar category, Enid Blyton, C.S. Lewis, J.K Rowling, I realize now that either characters were likeable or they were not. Harry, Ron and Hermoine are all associated with qualities we'd like to possess but the same can't stated of the Malfoys. So too in this novel we have characters we can cheer for and those we will boo. I guess children's books just have to be that way.

Rushdie isn't too descriptive here in my opinion. I couldn't visualize all characters in my mind's eye, same can be said of some places. Even with this falling I will have trouble getting Butt the Hoopoe out of my head. If something is vivid it is the Sea of Stories which is a character by itself, would love to see this on an IMAX screen. The pace is quicker than usual and I guess it has be keeping in mind the demographics of the readers.

The theme of the book deserves mention. Is storytelling really that important? Why is it important? I am guilty of not ruminating on the book long enough else I'd have the answers.

This entry is simple and that's because this is supposed to be a simple book. A simple book deserves a simple discussion, people have argued otherwise even after Rushdie has said it is not a parable, but I accept it as a story for kids.