Tim Ross of the Daily Post described Lahiri’s book as having “total mastery of narrative. That marks her out as a writer of rare gifts and make this novel a fine achievement” (daily mail). Ross also adds that the novel is full of detail. Ross discusses Ashima, a prevalent character in the story, and the many hardships that she had to endure. In addition, Ross discusses the main character in the book, Gogol, and his consistent “routine” explained and displayed throughout the novel, a routine that Ross describes as fairly normal. Ross adds that Gogol is seen as a boy that eventually grows up to be a man and cannot wait to rid of his “ridiculous” name given to him by his father. After reviewing the novel, in a very positive light, Tim Ross states that Lahiri …show more content…
This is evident in the statement made by Ross, “Lahiri relates these events with such clarity that you can’t help but care deeply about the characters. At times it is impossible not to be moved by simple exchanges between Gogol and his father by the life of a family caught between two continents” (daily mail). It is safe to say that Ross thinks very highly of the novel based upon his positive book review.
Derek Weiler, an editor at Quill and Quire, published an article in the Toronto Star reviewing Lahiri’s critically acclaimed novel. Weiler first begins the article by stating that The Namesake is Lahiri’s way of “graduating to novel writing” (Toronto Star), which he believes Lahiri tried to do with a sense of urgency. Weiler even implies that the novel does not compare to some of her other works like Interpreter of Maladies created by Lahiri a year prior. Weiler states that the novel had no characters or plotlines that compare to her first novel but it