Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

I was really looking forward to reading this book because I enjoy reading books that enlighten me to different cultures and places and allow me to learn about things of which I am not already familiar with. It is one of the things I enjoy about translated works and in addition I have always had a particular interest in India.

I was initially disappointed when I first started reading the book, as I was quite hoping to like it, but I found the first chapter to be a bit disjointed and hard to follow, and it did not really draw me into the story, but I have to say once I got passed the first chapter things really began to pick up all of the sudden.

Perhaps it just took me a while to get in sync with the narrative style of the story, but I am now finding to be really quite interesting and it is moving along rather swiftly.

I love the twins Rahel and Estha. And I really enjoy the way in which the book has a sort of whimsical and humorous side to it, and moments that teeter on the ridiculous, and yet at the same time it paints a realistic picture of modern family life in India, and the clash of modern values and old traditions. The struggles of people living in that world as if caught between different eras. Their lost dreams and hopes and the importance of family as well as the inner family conflicts.

There are moments that are heartbreaking, and moments that will make you laugh.

I have been wanting to read this book and really appreciate your candid review. The culture in India is very interesting and so I will check it out to learn more about it.

I had the exact same thing - after about thirty pages I was so confused I almost gave it up, but I ended up getting really into it, and now I would definitely consider it one of my favorite books.

The imagery is beautiful and the characters are well-developed.

This read is absolutely gorgeous. I agree, the first 40 pages is very confusing, but once things click you won't be able to put it down. Shame she hasn't written another book.

I enjoyed this book very much and it is a 4 to 5 star book. The prose and use of words that the author chose to describe a thing or event was wonderful. The flashbacks and going from present to past probably could lead to some confusion but not any different than other authors or movies that use this technique. The book had some lightheartedness which would be necesarry to spare one from the darkness in the twins lives. This book was a Booker Man Prize winner. It does deserve to be a 1001 Book.

i read this book twice in a week. the metaphors, plot, etc absolutely briliant

I read the book and found it to be almost surreal in some parts but as the reader above with the REALLY long random name said, its metaphors etc were simply stunning. Plot was a bit.. hmmm...great start didn't fancy the ending too much.

I gave this book 4 out of 5 stars. The prose is beautiful. Roy creates imagery so strong, that I felt like at times, I was there.I could smell the jungle, see the little wooden boat from the children's past...

She can breathe characters into life. By the end of the novel, I wanted to smack Baby Kochama upside the head. The story is just so heart breaking.

I gave it a 4 out of 5 rating because I thought the beginning was a little hard to get into. Also, I find her style a little imitative of Rushdie's.

I tried reading this book sometime back. But left after 40-50 pages. Nothing was moving. But after reading these reviews i will surely give it a another shot.

Kristel wrote: "I enjoyed this book very much and it is a 4 to 5 star book. The prose and use of words that the author chose to describe a thing or event was wonderful. The flashbacks and going from present to pas..."

Can some one tell me what Rahel means when she says "No Locust Stand I"? (example on p. 179 of hardback copy). I figured out most of the other jumbled expressions, but think this is important, but I am missing it.

Karen wrote: "Can some one tell me what Rahel means when she says "No Locust Stand I"? (example on p. 179 of hardback copy). I figured out most of the other jumbled expressions, but think this is important, bu..."

I was going to attempt to answer this myself, but here is the best response for your question:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R14KJH5T...

Thanks! amazing what one can find just "googling." Lots of explanations on this site:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone...

"No Locust Stand I" is a misunderstanding of a Latin phrase [locus standi] meaning "no [legal] standing, but it comes to signify something like "homeless" in this novel.

Amanda wrote: "Man- I'm all alone. I reallllyy disliked this book. I just thought it was boring. And then I read an interview with the author where she said she hadn't edited the book at all- that it was just a f..."

That's really interesting and definitely makes sense to me as well! It has been about a year since I read this book, and I still think of it as just 'meh.' It told an extremely interesting story that normally would have really engaged me, and I also normally really like 'experimental' elements - but this just wasn't well done. It needed editing, most especially to solidify events since they come out of order. The author told us each climax before it actually happened - which makes it especially clear that it's a first draft. It's too obvious that current events are based on what is to come. Some of the wordplay was also way too conscious - this would have been easily fixed in editing to add a bit of subtlety.

Anyway, great story, poor execution.

If you're looking for a great and experimental story on India with great execution, definitely try "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie. That is an incredible book.

Midnight's Children is in everyway superior to this book. In fact, Roy took a lot of elements from Midnight's Children and put them into this book. But, I still did enjoy The God of Small Things. There were parts in this book where I was close to bawling my eyes out.

I read this book years ago and while I can't remember its plot or even its characters, I do remember the beauty of its language which had quite an impact on me.

As noted by the other posters there is some agreement to the extent that Midnight's Children is the superior book and that God of Small Things borrowed a lot from it. I've read Midnight and while it may be the more technically sophisticated work; God of Small Things is the more beautiful (horribly subjective, I know) of the two.

'God of small things'draws you in slowly but is a delight once you enter the world of the twins. Another book that I've just read is a slow-burner with a real kick at the end, Pomegranate Sky by Louise Soraya Black, picked it up on a train and couldn't put it down.

Regine wrote: "I gave this book 4 out of 5 stars. The prose is beautiful. Roy creates imagery so strong, that I felt like at times, I was there.I could smell the jungle, see the little wooden boat from the childr..."

I've only just got round to reading Rushdie 'Midnight's Children' and can see how Roy might have borrowed from his style. Now that I'm wel into book 2 of MC, it occurred to me that I much prefer Roy's prose to Rushdie. Her writing has a finesse to it.

I read this book when it first was first published, at a time when I read a book through to the end even when I hated it. AND I hated this. It won a Booker Man Prize winner, HOW?! Most of it is gibberish.
Why would an author not edit her book. If Arundhati Roy were to write another, I would not go near it.

It's funny you should say that Chris, but I believe it took Roy quite a while to write this book and it went through many edits. Incidentally it took me 2 goes to actualy get into the story, so maybe it's one of those novels that you need to put away and come back to at a later time.

Zee wrote: "It's funny you should say that Chris, but I believe it took Roy quite a while to write this book and it went through many edits. Incidentally it took me 2 goes to actualy get into the story, so may..."

Hi Zee,
May be I'm wrong about the editing then, I cannot recall where I read (it was quite some time ago now)that Roy refused to have it edited. I'm glad you enjoyed it eventually.

Chris wrote: "Zee wrote: "It's funny you should say that Chris, but I believe it took Roy quite a while to write this book and it went through many edits. Incidentally it took me 2 goes to actualy get into the s..."

Actually, after I posted my reply i went and checked and Roy has said that she never edited it. However I read somewhere that she did! I was told by my creative writing instructor that when authors say they never edit or draft their work, they're LYING. There's no way on earth a person can write a bestseller without revising it.

Zee wrote: "Chris wrote: "Zee wrote: "It's funny you should say that Chris, but I believe it took Roy quite a while to write this book and it went through many edits. Incidentally it took me 2 goes to actualy ..."

I think she's got to be lying - at least a little. Maybe she didn't edit it as much as she usually does her writing? Or maybe she means that didn't rearrange/rethink, but instead just fixed up sentences and smaller things?

You know, as beautiful as the language was in this book (I LOVED her way of putting together words and forming new ones, new ideas), it took me FOREVER to get through this book. I was surprised everyone noticed the similarity to Midnight's Children as well (I hardly know anyone who's read it!) but that was one of the first impressions I got as well. (I hated that book, by the way, just could NOT get into the symbolism). Reminded me a tad of Game of Thrones, too (alright, just the (view spoiler)[twin sex (hide spoiler)], to be honest). I found the out-of-order time sequences to be annoying and very confusing, but the "gibberish" writing was actually one of my favorite parts. I love how she strings words together, making fun of both how native English speakers run their words together, and how different it sounds when non-native speakers also do the same thing, but the words run together at different places then with native speakers. I thought it "spoke" a lot of culture, especially because of the clash of English and Indian culture apparent just in the lives of the family members themselves.

I liked it in some sense, but near the end, I kept hoping we'd just get to the part where Sophie Mol dies already, so the story could move along. And then that was just a measly page. All that buildup, and the death itself was nearly a footnote. I suppose that was the point, though, that all of their lives turned on that simple little footnote from that point on.

Regardless, it's not one I would recommend to a lot of people, unless you just really want to read all of the Booker prize winners or Boxall's list. I have a feeling it will be one of my more forgettable reads (meaning in ten years I may forget how much I was OVER it by the time I was done and may try to re-read it).

My GR friends and I all gave it three or four stars (I rated four). I thought it had a lot of similarity to Midnight's Children also. The story zigs and zags a lot- that's good for some people, bad for others who don't like that style.
Roy published another novel last year, The Ministry of Utmost Happiness. It's getting an average of 3.5 rating on GR.

I read this a couple months ago and absolutely loved it. I have added it to my list of favorites.

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy - 5 stars - My Review