Reading 1001 discussion

Archives > 1. Why did the author not name the prime minister or the city?

Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Kristel (new)

Kristel (kristelh) | 3832 comments Mod
Why has Mistry chosen not to name the Prime Minister or the City by the Sea, when they are easily recognizable? Does recognition of these elements make any difference in your attitude toward the story?

message 2: by Anna (new)

Anna Fennell | 107 comments It might be because of my age or lack of knowledge about this particular area of the world but I did not find them recognizable. Maybe if I did some research they would be.

message 3: by Book (new)

Book Wormy | 1822 comments Mod
Like Anna the city and leader were not recognizable to be but I am guessing to those living in India they would be immediately identifiable.

I wondered if they were not named so the author could maintain this was a work of fiction and not face persecution?

message 4: by Eadie (new)

Eadie (eadieburke) I agree with Shuva.

message 5: by Patrick (new)

Patrick Robitaille | 895 comments I also agree with Shuva (I also guessed it was Indira Gandhi and Mumbai/Bombay). But I think that Sashinka also raises a good point about the fact that it could have been any city in India and that for any poor in that country, it didn't really matter to know who was in power; their fate/life would not improve.

message 6: by Kristel (new)

Kristel (kristelh) | 3832 comments Mod
I agree it was Indira Gandhi. I remember 1975 very well and being from US and probably the US supporting Indira a lot, I was so shocked by what this book revealed about the PM. To me, the not naming the PM fit the time the book was set in, a fear to name the PM because of the "emergency". It gave that feel to the story. Not sure, why not mention the city and that one I did not guess until I checked the map.

back to top