Title: The White Tiger
Author: Aravind
Adiga
Publisher:
Atlantic Books
Publish
date: 2008
ISBN: 978-1-84354-722-8
Book Quote:
‘There are three main diseases of this
country, sir: typhoid, cholera, and election fever. This last one is the worst;
it makes people talk and talk about things that they have no say in. …. At the
tea shop, the gossip grew furious. … Like eunuchs discussing the Kaka Sutra,
the voters discuss the elections in Laxmangarh.’
This novel is a polariser. A glance round
the review circuit will show fans raving at the satirical wit and galloping
pace, and detractors growling at the unfavourable portrayal of the poor. The
unsavoury exploits of the anti-hero, and the liberties with political and
social facts that Adiga is supposed to have taken. The novel won the Booker for
2008 and is (unbelievably) a debut novel. Debut novel! Holy smoke.
Who is the novel’s target audience? I would
say, people like me. We have no idea about India or Indian politics, or
customs. Any small knowledge we have is third hand. The acrylic-colour sketches
of life are a vivid backdrop to the story for us – intriguing but not the main
focus. The human interaction and the social structure constructs a much more
solid level for us to be guided around. The ‘coop’ is at first glance an
entirely alien system of populace management. But as we look closer, and
closer, it all starts translating into something much more familiar.
Frighteningly similar to ‘Western’ culture control methods. You do something
because it’s expected of you. If you don’t do it, you’re bad. People in power
have exemption passes for doing bad things because well, how would anything get
done otherwise?
Many readers drop by the wayside because
they can’t take the ‘savage’ humour. Why is it often described as ‘savage’? Too
painful? Too nasty? Too near the bone? Or great because it is all of these? The
function of the satire is of course utilizing humour to speak the unspeakable.
This overarching concept is verbalized wthin the novel in the recurring phrase
(originating from Pinky Madam), ‘What a
fucking joke.’ Balram says: ‘But to be called a murderer by the police? What a fucking joke.’ Pretty much the
nub of the argument.
However both fans and detractors tend to
miss the point. Aravind doesn’t describe India. He’s describing an imbalance of
social acceptability and culpability which is global, and seemingly inbuilt to
human nature. He’s drawing attention to
moral hypocrisy in a way that is too visceral for many, and too apparently
localized for immediate transparency. Think Animal Farm. Without a doubt we’re
meant to make the literary connection, with the insistent repetition of The
Stork, The Raven, and The Buffalo and The Mongoose as character substitution
names. They’re even called ‘The Animals’ collectively. Yet I haven’t seen a
single reviewer mention this. The local colour is there for structure and
interest. The story’s purpose is moral analogy, not a comment on India per se.
Five Moose-hoofs up. This one was a
jaw-dropper.
Howdy, it's JK from Book Bloggers Network - love the critique of the book but would like a synopsis - I googled it though because you have me intrigued to read it now :)
ReplyDeleteThanks JK. The book is well worth the read. I know... synopsis. At the moment I've decided to ditch them, at least for well-known books. As you say, every Google will come up with 30 reviews, all with a near-identical 200 word synopsis at the start. I got sick of adding to the pile. With unreviewed books it's a different matter. Am taking the comment on board though and if I get many similar I'll re-think the strategy.
ReplyDelete