Another characteristic of the writing in The Namesake is its prolific use of detail and description.
For instance, over the course of four pages (150 to 154), Lahiri tells us about Gogol and Maxine's drive to her parents' cabin in New Hampshire, how they live ("There are exposed pipes in the bathrooms, wire stapled over doorsills, nails protruding from beams"), eat, and pass their days there ("Gerald spends most of his time in his vegetable garden, his nails permanently blackened from his careful cultivation of lettuce and herbs"), using maybe one sentence of dialogue on each page, buried within descriptions of the dirt road to the cabin, how Gerald and Lydia are dressed, the furnishings, etc. But aside from some swimming, runs around the lake, antiquing, and such, there's little action. And the minor events that do occur don't contribute much to the plot.
One reviewer, in Publishers Weekly, said that the author "offers a number of beautiful and moving tableaux, but these fail to coalesce into something more than a modest family saga." Kirkus Reviews said that "Many scenes cry out for dialogue" (especially the one later in the book where Maxine and Gogol break up).
There certainly is not a lot of action in these pages. Was the descriptive writing style the author used successful in maintaining your interest? Do you think it succeeds in revealing the personality and motivations of the characters, or does she need to have them do more, talk more?
Comments (1)
These last two entries about the writing style were very interesting. I wish that I still had my book at hand.
I think that the use of description in The Namesake helps us to come closer to what Gogol is seeing and feeling in each of his experiences.
"...using maybe one sentence of dialogue on each page, buried within descriptions of the dirt road to the cabin, how Gerald and Lydia are dressed, the furnishings, etc. But aside from some swimming, runs around the lake, antiquing, and such, there's little action. And the minor events that do occur don't contribute much to the plot."
I don't think dialogue and moving the action along would be that helpful. In reality this is not an action story but a story of Gogol's life as he moves through it. Much of the real story is going on in Gogol's mind and heart - and we see through his eyes all the places (his room, his home, Max's apartment, the lake and accomodations, and many more) as clearly as he sees them and I think that we as readers are making judgements about these people and places that he encounters. And then we're looking at his response and perhaps measuring it against what our own might be.
The plot is his constant inner experiences and his conflicting feelings, and their effect on him - the actions in the story are the results of his inner feelings and conflict. The plot wouldn't move at all without the descriptions.
Although I must admit that I ususally don't like to wade through overwhelming descriptions, I do feel that in this book those descriptions - more so than the dialogue - move the story.
Diana
Posted by Diana Lytle | December 1, 2006 10:06 AM
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:06