What’s the point of saying you are no better than second-class?

Reading list: Cape Town Coolie (Reshard Gool), A House for Mr. Biswas (V.S. Naipaul), The In-Between World of Vikram Lall (M.G. Vassanji), Bricklane (Monica Ali), Jasmine (Bharati Mukherjee), In A Far Country (K.S. Maniam), and The Pleasures of Conquest (Yasmine Gooneratne.).

sorry so late to add this…

I have not spoken about Lahiri in specific at all in this discussion (do please follow all my comments before anyone even…) as I have not read her yet (even though I read quite a bit mostly it is Playboy). I brought “Interpreter of..” two years ago but haven’t had time to read it – other stuff precedes.

My take here has been more on emphasizong some universal points of human connection in literature, urge for South Asian writers to dwell on nostalgia, vernacular ideas presented in flowerly english, etc.

Perhaps, Raju is right about Lahiri (I would not know) if she makes an universal appeal as per our definition. Deepa, Saheli et al. would know better.

Now, indirect words in praise for Lahiri. I was first told about Lahiri years ago by a colleague who is a Professor in Geochemistry (not a Literature Professor) and immigrant from Hong Kong over a lunch. She has been here for more than 40 years, all her kids are US born and raised.

The whole lunch she talked about Lahiri and her stories. She seems moved to talk about her at length, and use experience of her raising kids in USA. Maybe, Lahiri does make universal connection, I need to check myself. No matter, we need do need definition for universality – and there comes our Walter Mitty (we all are Walter Mitty)

I’m also not one to treat literature with large L’s. if a novel deserves to be read, people should recommend it and discuss it

I think you hit a nail on the head though Cicatrix….does Namesake “deserve” to be part of a canon of literature? the problem may be that the Canon is problematic…do works get put into the Canon on merit? I can’t think that’s true, just from what we’ve all learned about eurocentricity, male-centricity, and other biases

however, the test of universality is a merit-based test. even still….if Lahiri describes a particular life experience, i wonder how it can’t be universal at some level. not everyone may be an immigrant’s child, but if Namesake does create a world that describes an immigrant child’s experience in a way that beings insight into that experience, does that then generate any universal insights? i do think Namasake describes Gogol’s life in a way that provides insight

Yeah, there is a lot of perfectly readable and enjoyable literature which still addresses important things about being a human regardless of culture. For example RK Narayan (ok, ok, I’ll stop!) It’s not a matter of “highbrow” or of not describing a particular milieu but of how strongly a piece of literature illuminates more universal experience.

I wonder if the commenters who bring up “universal experience” are questioning whether Lahiri belongs (or will eventually belong) to the Canon (the official or the nominally accepted) of Great Literature.

Not me..because not all pieces in the Canon of Great Literature address “universal experience” – so the question of whether Lahiri will touch “universal experience” more strongly is not synonymous with whether she will belong to the Canon.

trying to ask if Lahiri’s story is unverisal in the way you write it, i think i might agree. but there’s elements in Namesake that are universal; the longing of the immigrant, the tie between father and son; the price and rewards of duty

And of course, no work by humans completely excludes reflection on “cultural universals,” but it’s a matter of emphasis.

James Thurber’s The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is quite universal too. Any one has to be married to understand that. That is one universal piece of literature.

Many earlier thanks were not complete – a lot others have contributed positively to this thread, like Amardeep, SMR, Raju, Cicatrix et al.

Well, despite my comments here, I hope not!

This has been a really thought-provoking thread. My thanks to everyone as well.

I wonder if the commenters who bring up “universal experience” are questioning whether Lahiri belongs (or will eventually belong) to the Canon (the official or the nominally accepted) of Great Literature.

I’m not reverent when it comes to Literature with a capital ‘L’ so, frankly, I don’t care. But I do see how classic literature lends itself to new interpretations, endlessly varying perspectives, etc. Something new is discovered wtih every reading, and the books withstand the test of time.

So as for Lahiri…I don’t know. I would place her, as a young author with only two books to her name, in that middle-brow literature catagory so often sneered at by Lit-snobs.

Please stay tuned for my defence of the middle-brow

I recently wrote a paper specifically addressing her use of consumption metaphors as problematiically defining South Asian American experience.

Heck, forget the metaphors, the consumption itself is a problematic defining marker of South Asian American experience

Amardeep, I don’t think middle class ABCD life is pallid at all. What about the brief moment in The Namesake when Gogol’s family’s home is vandalized? The total disavowal of racism is extremely distressing.

trying to ask if Lahiri’s story is unverisal in the way you write it, i think i might agree. but there’s elements in Namesake that are universal; the longing of the immigrant, the tie between father and son; the price and rewards of duty

overall, that is a good point