21st Century Literature discussion

This thread should be free of spoilers for any part of the book beyond the end of Book Three.

Please add any comments you like about your impressions of Book Three.

This book focuses on a range of characters. Many of their actions could be thought of as morally questionable. How do you find yourself relating to the characters? Do you find them sympathetic, and if not is that an issue for you?

I didn't like or relate to any one of the characters, although I found some them fascinating.

I felt sad when Chemical was introduced. How could it not alter everything?

I thought Dimple was relatively sympathetic. Did you not find this?

I agree with you about Chemical. It's odd, there is a romance about the pipes. You understand that they ruin people's lives. But they do it in a way that has a romance to it, where the harsher new drugs just destroy like cola kills a tooth left floating in it.

Yes, Dimple was most definitely a victim of circumstance(s), but I never really engaged with her, although towards the end of the book I began to be willing her on. I guess it depends on what you mean by sympathetic...

In this book chemical was more of a street drug whilst opium still felt slightly elitest: you often went to a particular place and always used special equipment. You were engaging in an activity that was centuries old. It was a group experience - up to a point (!)

So much a out this part was upsetting. What got me was both the pleasure the addicts got from violence, and how they seemed to have no trouble telling their stories to Dimple, who seemed to not mind hearing them.

The example with Rumi stuck out.
In Stinking Asafetida (clearly referencing Stinking Lizaveta from The Brothers Karamazov, making me wonder what other literary references I missed) Rumi tells Dimple about hideously assaulting a prostitute he is raping ("to shut her up, he hit her in the mouth, drawing blood, and the sight of it pushed him over and he came again.") Dimple responds, "I have a friend who would have given you much better service."

In rehab, Rumi is told, "you want to taste blood because you're bored and pain is preferable to nothing."

Overall, despicable characters that I cannot sympathize with and do not have compensating redeeming qualities.

Rumi is particularly chilling, and I do find him entirely unsympathetic.

Dimple's reaction to some of these stories I find complex, but it doesn't make me less sympathetic towards her. It speaks to me of a desensitisation to violence, and to the world in general, that has soaked into her from the life that's brought her up to this point.

She has been the victim of violence herself. She is objectified by almost everyone she gets in any way close to. Her life is geared towards slaking the vices of others, sexually and chemically. It saddens rather than surprises me that she has the reaction that she does to Rumi's story. It speaks to me of resignation, rather than coldness. She has learned to expect nothing else from life.

Yes, I think resignation sums it up very well.

It's difficult to feel any sympathy for Rumi, to be sure. I will say that I felt sympathy for the other characters, including Rashid and Salim. Mostly though, I think I set aside morality completely while reading this book. I'm not a big fan of stories about drug addiction. Even celebrated ones like Trainspotting just turn me off completely. I did enjoy this story though. The characters here are not what we would call "good", but they are understandable and they are (forgive the cliche) "products of their environment".

I agree with Terry about Dimple's reaction to Rumi's story. If I recall, the author says explicitly that Dimple suppressed her surprise and horror and then gave a casual, ironic response. To express shock would be to express naivete and weakness.

The last thing I'll add is that Chemical and other drugs in the novel (or perhaps the pipe) may well be characters themselves, but for me the most intense and horrifying character was Bombay itself. When I got the full picture of how terribly unmerciful and indifferent to suffering this environment was, it was easier to feel some small amount of sympathy for even Rumi, who, if he had no virtue, was at least pitiable for his hopelessness and his seemingly inescapable fate. The irony of the "freedom" presented in the novel is that, for many, the nature of the end seemed certain and fast-approaching.

Matthew wrote: "I did enjoy this story though. The characters here are not what we would call "good", but they are understandable and they are (forgive the cliche) "products of their environment". "

Absolutely! I don't like drug tales either - nothing to do with morality, but rather because I can't relate to them - but this really felt like a story about people shaped and moulded by the city wherein they lived.

Matthew,

Well said. I think the author does consider Bombay a character; you put into words very well something I don't think I even realised explicitly that I was feeling. I didn't really judge these characters, even Rumi. The way they are presented makes it difficult to credit them with full responsibility, and pity is hard to escape.