I found the author's writing style in The Namesake quite distinctive. For one thing, the novel is written in the present tense. Why do you think she chose to do that? Do you think the present tense makes the characters seem closer to the reader or more distant?
I'm reminded of Empire Falls by Richard Rousseau (great book, by the way; it was the Nashua Reads title in 2003), which was written in the past tense except for chapters using the point of view of a teenager. My thought was that he did that because adolescence is often characterized as a time when the present is all-important, and many teens think they are immortal and many are not yet mature enough to think through the future consequences of their actions.
But some critics have said that Lahiri's use of the present tense creates distance between the reader and Gogol. Is that how you felt when reading it?
(By the way, I see that Seattle has chosen "The Namesake" for its Seattle Reads program in 2007.)
Comments (1)
From the post, Writing Style 1:
"I found the author's writing style in The Namesake quite distinctive. For one thing, the novel is written in the present tense. Why do you think she chose to do that? Do you think the present tense makes the characters seem closer to the reader or more distant?"
I think that the first person brings us closer to the character and the experience of the story. Readers usually like books based on how well they can identify with the characters. When we don't like a character we can't get into a book. The author draws very sympathetic characters in The Namesake. Gogol is especially so. The first person writing puts us into the situation of experiencing with Gogol - we aren't just outside looking in - we're with him experiencing and feeling as he does.
I liked this book. And as I read the posts and write my comments, I think that the first person writing and the descriptions were a good deal of why I liked it. I did not feel distant from Gogol but included.
I think the idea that the previous writer makes about teens and the present is very true and to an extent, Gogol is like a searching teen not too interested in the future but caught up in the present. Perhaps its that "stuck in the present" that in the end begins to fully form a past for him - and knowing the "past" - the reason for his name - he can now put his present and future life together.
Diana
Posted by Diana Lytle | December 1, 2006 10:35 AM
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:35