Paradise by Abdulrazak Gurnah – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Born in East Africa, Yusuf has few qualms about the journey he is to make. It never occurs to him to ask why he is accompanying Uncle Aziz or why the trip has been organised so suddenly, and he does not think to ask when he will be returning. But the truth is that his 'uncle' is a rich and powerful merchant and Yusuf has been pawned to him to pay his father's debts.

Paradise is a rich tapestry of myth, dreams and Biblical and Koranic tradition, the story of a young boy's coming of age against the backdrop of an Africa increasingly corrupted by colonialism and violence.’

Afin de lire en français,cliquez ici

Paradise is a novel written by the British Tanzanian author Abdulrazak Gurnah, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 2021. The story follows the journey of Yusuf, a young boy, who is sent on unpaid labour by his father, to settle his debts from his sinking hotel business in Zanzibar.

The story is set in the early 20^th century, a few decades after the scramble for Africa. Yusuf travels from Zanzibar across east Africa, largely in present-day Tanzania, with Aziz, the man to whom he had been sold by his father. Given the setting, there was the colonial aspect that the regions they were travelling in was under German control and a war in Europe between Britain and Germany seemed imminent (which I understood as the lead up to the First World War).

I enjoyed the author’s description of the rich landscape and the diverse culture; showing how during that time, it was a mix of Arabs, Europeans and Indians living alongside the native population. Different interactions between the characters also bring out the prejudices each group had for the other, throughout the novel.

One relationship I appreciated in the novel was the friendship that was formed between Yusuf and Khalil, the latter too who was brought in by Aziz under a similar debt settlement arrangement. Thus, Khalil was like the “caring older sibling” of Yusuf, and both of them had a longing for home once this ordeal was over but also knew that there was probably very little to return to – a feeling of helplessness that could be seen very well.

While the setting and the diversity was interesting, I also felt like reading multiple different stories forced in together, with just a few core characters in common in each of those stories. After a point, it became very difficult to keep track of all these different characters, and many who do not ever appear again after being all important at one part of the novel – which is understandable in a novel that focuses on a journey, but difficult for a reader like myself.

I also could not help but notice how invisible women seemed to be in the novel. This was not because I was expecting strong female protagonists or feminist characters; even traditional mothers, devoted wives, daughters or older women could have added to the sense of the communities Yusuf encounters. Given how much the novel focuses on different cultures, families and social relationships, I found the relative absence of women somewhat surprising. It felt as though an important part of the social world was missing.

To summarise, I felt that it had a good setting that helped me explore and understand a culture, given previously I had not read any literature from this region. The impact of colonialism on these societies was also brought out in a subtle manner that I appreciated. Having said that, somewhere on the way, the author had lost focus on the plot, and I did not feel like I was reading a fulfilling story. I still had a decent reading experience, but it is unlikely for it to be a memorable book on my bookshelf in the long run. On that note, I award the novel a rating of six on ten.

Rating - 6/10

Have a nice day
Anirudh

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Why can it sometimes feel as though half the population is living in a different moral universe? Why do ideas such as 'fairness' and 'freedom' mean such different things to different people? Why is it so hard to see things from another viewpoint? Why do we come to blows over politics and religion? Jonathan THaidt reveals that we often find it hard to get along because our minds are hardwired to be moralistic, judgemental and self-righteous. He explores how morality evolved to enable us to form communities, and how moral values are not just about justice and equality - for some people authority, sanctity or loyalty matter more. Morality binds and blinds, but, using his own research, Haidt proves it is possible to liberate ourselves from the disputes that divide good people.’

The Righteous Mind is a book written by the American psychologist Jonathan Haidt back in 2012, where the author tries to explore why people have been driven to profoundly dislike each other over political views.

The author splits the book into three parts – the first part on intuitions and strategic reasoning, then in the next part exploring how morality has more to it than harm and fairness and later on the binds and blinds of morality. He starts by explaining several classic moral dilemmas and goes on to explain how morality Is relative as he brings out his experiences during his visit to Orissa (present day Odisha), a coastal state in Eastern India. He shows how for the same question that was asked, Americans reacted very differently to people from Odisha.

He then goes on to explain the oriigins of conservative thoughts while identifying himself as a liberal. I understood early on that his intended audience were American liberal to whom he explains that the conservatives too believe that they are ‘righteous’ and it is just that the two sides have different core values; and this difference does not necessarily make the other side evil.

The only thing I appreciated about the book was the author’s intention, to thell his ‘political side’ to reach out to the other side. This was a noble intention in 2012 as politics in US had still not entered the ‘post truth’ era. Having said that, every point he said about US conservatives is no longer relevant in the Trump era.

This book suffered from excessive simplification. I myself am of Indian origin (though with no connection to the state of Odisha which was the author’s example), and the author visited one state in a large country with diverse cultures, and drew sweeping conclusions based on one sample. I could have understood if he said that in the specific place he visited, people found certain behaviours acceptable, that was not acceptable in his American milieu. Instead the language he used was “to Indians, this is acceptable” even though there are several factors at play – be it level of education or the socioeconomic status.

The generalisations do not end there – to him there are only two sides in a political discussion – liberals and conservatives. That is not true in most of the world, and not in the US either – under his own classification, Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders would be classified as people with the same political views; and primaries in the US would be largely redundant. The category is too broad and the book maybe appealing to those who are reading about politics for the first time, but for others, these generalisations were would frustrating.

On trying to understand and engage with the other side, I agree that there could be genuine discussion on tax policy, the extent of the welfare state, the role of police, border control, etc. one cannot be oblivious to the need for boundaries when it comes to racism and bigotry. When Trump, on live TV claims that a certain group of immigrants were eating the “pets of Americans”, which was a pure racist diatribe and when there are ‘conservatives’ who defend that, there is no point understanding where they are coming from – simply put, they are not righteous.

I got the impression that the author was speaking from a high horse of tried to be the “enlightened centrist” (yes, I am using this as a pejorative). He claims that there are extremes on both sides but whom he calls as “radical left” in the US talk of health care for all, whereas the “extremes” on the right talk of mass deportation, denaturlisation / remigration, religion-based laws (such as on abortion) – the two so-called extremes are not the same.

I did some more research on the author himself after having read the book and much as he claims to be a “centrist”, he seems to have joined the right wing culture war bandwagon when it comes to transphobia, being a member of an “anti-woke” board (whatever that term means) in the University of Austin – which by no stretch of imagination is that of a centrist or liberal, but a typical conservative in present day US. That also explains why he was willing to extend such a long rope to conservatives.

To conclude, this book engaged in over-simplication, and trying to understand the other side is a noble pursuit, but not at the cost of condoning bigotry. Sometimes, doing “both sides” is not the best option and there has to be bias in favour of the truth, especially in the era that we are living in. The book and the author’s views are incompatible for the the times we live in and I award it a three on ten.

Rating – 3/10

Have a nice day

Win Every Argument by Mehdi Hasan - Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up: 

‘Arguments are everywhere—and everyone wants to win. In fact, every single person on the face of the planet has, at some point in their lives, tried to win an argument.

Whether it is in the comments section on Facebook, or in the marble hallways of Congress, or at the Thanksgiving dinner table. We cannot escape the human urge, need, and desire to argue.

Mehdi Hasan believes that anyone can win an argument. As a journalist, anchor, and interviewer who has clashed with politicians, generals, spies, and celebrities from across the world, Hasan will reveal his tricks of the trade—16 different ways to get the upper hand in a debate, from the Rule of 3 to Judo Moves.

The book will also be chock-full of vivid examples and behind-the-scenes anecdotes from Hasan’s own debates, which have ranged from the Oxford Union in England to Kiev in Ukraine, as well as from U.S. presidential debates and scenes from movies and TV shows like Star Trek and A Few Good Men. Win Every Argument will unpack words of wisdom from everyone from the ancient philosopher Aristotle to the WWE wrestler Ronda Rousey.'

Whether you are a student making a presentation or a lawyer trying to convince the court, this book will teach you how to sharpen your speaking skills to make the winning case.’ 

Win Every Argument is a book written by Mehdi Hasan, a journalist known for his combative interviews and debates. In this book, he tries to reveal the secrets of his trade - as to how to be an effective debater and win arguments on contentious topics.  

The book his split into various chapters, explaining various parts of an argument - how it has been important since time immemorial (with anecdotes from Greek and Roman times), the importance of understanding the audience, anticipating the arguments of the opponent in advance and the importance of "effective storytelling". The author cites various examples from his own journalistic career with prominent media organisations on how he used these techniques effectively, against prominent politicians and ideologues.  

The book is useful in certain limited contexts - especially in public speaking, when there is an audience involved, or for political discussions. The techniques that he mentions may not help winning an argument with your friend or your partner (some techniques such as anticipating the other person's arguments may be useful). The author also took the approach of winning the argument at all costs, challenging many traditional views on debates, wherein the author justifies the use of ad hominem attacks; and illustrates how, when used correctly, it could be effective. Using appropriate "quotes" depending on the audience is also an advice that I found very useful, as many fall into the trap of quoting their favourite politician / writer / philosopher and when the listener has / is likely to have a poor opinion on that person; and thus using one’s favourite quote may not be persuasive and could even be detrimental. 

I must disclose something about myself here, I have followed the works of the author almost since the beginning of their career in late 2000s (ever since I was a teenager) and have admired his debating techniques. I am also largely aligned with his politics given I identify myself with the left. So, this was a book that I wanted to like.  

Having said that, I was disappointed with the book. I was surprised to the extent to which the author was conceited, absolutely convinced that he nailed it in every argument that he had been in. A part of the problem is specific to me or anyone else who has been following his works regularly - a lot of debating points / arguments that he cites as examples are those that we have already seen on TV / YouTube and thus, felt repetitive. I would reiterate on the point of him being conceited as a couple of arguments that he cites in the book as to how he "absolutely won the audience" were arguments that I found were weak when I watched his show in the past and thus, was surprised to know that he was convinced of their merits. And I am coming as someone who agrees with his position on most of the contentious subjects and if that is the impact he has on me, I wonder what would have been the impact on those who completely disagree with him.  

An example for the above paragraph would be his Oxford Union speech where he passionately defended Islam, which I felt was a very good speech, and was convincing (personally, I am an atheist, so he was not preaching to the choir in my case). However, what surprised me was that the "best point" from the speech that he recalls is how he countered his opponent over the enormous gap in time over founding of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the advent of Islam - where I felt the author was pedantic and was a cheap debating point that added no value to the argument. This is one prominent example that I am citing in the review but there were several more.  

On the whole, I would say that this is a decent book as a starter for someone who is not used to political debates / public speaking. However, barring a few, I did not have a lot of takeaways from this book and being a non-fiction book, I expected a lot to learn from this book and that was missing here. It is unfortunate that I did not like this book and it certainly does not help much with winning arguments. I award this book with a rating of four on ten.  

Rating - 4/10 

Have a nice day

Anirudh

Four Thousand Weeks by Oliver Burkeman – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘What if you tried to stop doing everything, so you could finally get round to what counts?

Rejecting the futile modern obsession with 'getting everything done,' Four Thousand Weeks introduces readers to tools for constructing a meaningful life by embracing rather than denying their limitations.

Drawing on the insights of both ancient and contemporary philosophers, psychologists, and spiritual teachers, Oliver Burkeman sets out to realign our relationship with time - and in doing so, to liberate us from its tyranny.

Embrace your limits. Change your life. Discover how to make your four thousand weeks count in 2024.’

Four Thousand Weeks – as the title says, is a book on time management for mortals by the former journalist Oliver Burkeman. Life is finite but our ambitions are not. It is not uncommon to find ourselves feel guilty for not clearing out our “to do lists” or chasing our ambition while doing our daily job – all within the finite life that we have. With hustle culture on the rise, the author tries to make the point that life would be a lot better if we accept that it is finite and we would not be able to achieve everything we intend to.

The title of the book – four thousand weeks is a reference to the average life span of a human being – with 4000 weeks amounting to approximately 77 years. It is split into fourteen chapters, where the author makes his case, as to how the modern world has this obsession over productivity – often tied to capitalism. An example I would give is the efficiency myth at work that the author talks about – that if an employee completes their tasks within the given time, they do not get more time, they are given more tasks. The author gives several contemporary examples, on the unreasonable expectations we have of ourselves and to accept that “settling down” is not bad but is something positive.

I liked the idea of the book, and also the message that the author was trying to convey. I have been through the cycle of “productivity obsession” and thinking of life as a permanent “personality development” quest, feeling guilty every time for simply relaxing. I felt the author also gave several contemporary examples, relatable to the current readership, such as Amazon – and their obsession with having their home page loaded as fast as possible (which is a question of seconds). This is a book that came out in 2021 and I read it in 2025, and thus one thing that is missing from the book is the interactive AI models that we have today.

However, I felt that the book was long and that the point that he wanted to make was already made by the seventh chapter. The title was also a “clickbait” – given he did not talk about the “short lifespan” barring the introduction and it was more about time management and far less about our mortality. On that note, any number put on time would feel short – suppose the title had been 672 000 Hours – people would have had the same level of alarm over the fact that we live less than a million hours.

The appendix, with the ten suggestions on time management, was interesting and I felt they were practical. It was however not aligned with the tone of the book, given the author was telling us to ignore most of the advice related to “time management” from books and influencers and in the end, gave a set of advice himself, like every other author on this subject.

To conclude, I would say that the book is a good read and is helpful if one wants to get out of the obsession with productivity. The book has its flaws, but in the end, the reader has something to take away. On that note, I would award the book a rating of seven on ten.

Rating – 7/10

Have a nice day
Andy

Revenge of the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Twenty-five years after the publication of his groundbreaking first book, Malcolm Gladwell returns with a brand-new volume that reframes the lessons of The Tipping Point in a startling and revealing light.

Why is Miami…Miami? What does the heartbreaking fate of the cheetah tell us about the way we raise our children? Why do Ivy League schools care so much about sports? What is the Magic Third, and what does it mean for racial harmony? In this provocative new work, Malcolm Gladwell returns for the first time in twenty-five years to the subject of social epidemics and tipping points, this time with the aim of explaining the dark side of contagious phenomena.

Through a series of riveting stories, Gladwell traces the rise of a new and troubling form of social engineering. He takes us to the streets of Los Angeles to meet the world’s most successful bank robbers, rediscovers a forgotten television show from the 1970s that changed the world, visits the site of a historic experiment on a tiny cul-de-sac in northern California, and offers an alternate history of two of the biggest epidemics of our day: COVID and the opioid crisis. Revenge of the Tipping Point is Gladwell’s most personal book yet. With his characteristic mix of storytelling and social science, he offers a guide to making sense of the contagions of modern world. It’s time we took tipping points seriously.’

Revenge of the Tipping Point is a book from the author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell, who looks back at his book written in the 90s, called The Tipping Point. While I have not read that book, I understood from reading this book that for any major societal changes, there is a ‘tipping point’ after which the phenomenon is normalised and spreads across. While the previous book explored the positive aspects of the tipping point, this book explores the ‘revenge’, the negative consequences of the same tipping point.

The author explains through various stories, such as the health care system in the US, college admissions, covid-19 misinformation; wherein once a tipping point on anti-vax sentiment is reached, it is normalised in the particular community very fast, leading to the reappearance of diseases that were eradicated in the past. Most of the author’s examples are concentrated around the US, many picking up from where the author had left off.

I liked the idea of the book and the book was well written and was made more powerful by adding personal stories of people along with statistics and figures to support the findings. Given I read it in early 2025, many of the examples were relatable given we had just come past the Covid pandemic; something which all of us faced regardless of where we were. Same with many apparent ‘settled issues’ from the 90s, as progress attained, now being reopened by the right-wing culture wars, such as the attack on transgender rights or anti-affirmative action remarks; where even that has reached the same ‘tipping point’ making it acceptable to voice these opinions in public.

That said, I felt the author had a single conclusion in the book, on the tipping point and its effects. That was a point that was made to me by the time I finished the first two chapters but anything beyond that was repetition and to finish the book, I had to put in a lot of effort given I had lost interest in many of the subsequent stories given the point that was made was the same; that a tipping point was reached and it had negative consequences.

This could have been a short essay that could have been added as an addendum in the 25^th anniversary edition of the Tipping Point rather than having a whole book and I can imagine why those who had read the previous book were disappointed by this, because they do not learn anything beyond what had already been expressed in the previous book. While I have not read that book, I had read this book a book club discussion and this seemed to be a unanimous view of those who had read the Tipping Point. Another issue was that the book was heavily US centric and at felt, it fell into the trap of projecting what was happening in the US as universal and applicable to the rest of the world.

To conclude, I felt it was a necessary topic to be discussed given the current political climate with the return of the culture wars and reexamination of what were thought to be settled issues when it comes to attaining rights and liberties after years of activism. However, the point could have been made in a concise manner rather than having such a detailed book. On that note, I would award the book a rating of six on ten.

Rating – 6/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

Kallocain by Karin Boye – Book Review

 

Afin de lire mon avis de lecture en français, cliquez ici

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Written midway between Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the terrible events of the Second World War were unfolding, Kallocain depicts a totalitarian 'World State' which seeks to crush the individual entirely. In this desolate, paranoid landscape of 'police eyes' and 'police ears', the obedient citizen and middle-ranking scientist Leo Kall discovers a drug that will force anyone who takes it to tell the truth. But can private thought really be obliterated?’

Kallocain is a dystopian novel written by the Swedish author Karin Boye during the interwar period. The novel is set in a dystopian future where there is a form of a large world government translated in English as ‘World State’; in some ways modelled around the Soviet Union. The author wrote this in the 1930s, when the ideological battle was raging between market-driven individualist model of US and the Soviet collective model and the author presents this world.

The lead character is Leo Kall, a scientist who works for the army of the world state and is a fervent patriot and is convinced that all traitors are to be ‘removed’ from the state. He invents a serum, when injected, forces the person to speak the truth and reveal all their ideas against the state. He names the chemical after himself, as ‘Kallocain’. However, he is also a very insecure character, who is convinced that his wife is in love with his boss Rissen and somehow wants the truth out of her which leads to a lot of problems which forms the crux of the novel.

For me, this novel did not work; and felt that the world that the author had created was too disconnected from reality. I would have been more interested to know how this ‘world state’ operated, but most of the story took place in an interrogation room where Leo administered Kallocain to the wives of soldiers to get information on them. There was no indication on what the event was that led to this consolidation – or any talk on general things that happen every day, such as what the weather was, what was the landscape around, what was it that the people were doing for entertainment (even if it meant watching state propaganda shows), etc.

I felt the story had an interesting idea, especially given the historic context at that time, with certain countries going towards a planned economy and collective society; that the author imagined a dystopian version of that. However, at some point, she was confused between building her world and exploring the insecurities of Leo, and in the end, there was neither.  It is not a long read, however, was a very difficult read for me.

Science-fiction or dystopian novels are not my preferred genre but I felt I gave it a fair chance and for a reader like me, it could have worked more if she had chosen on a particular theme and having the other as a sub-plot that try to equally focus on both. On that note, I award the novel a rating of three on ten.

Rating – 3/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

The Vegetarian by Han Kang – Book Review

 

Afin de lire monavis de lecture en français, cliquez ici

Note: I read the French translation of the novel

Publisher’s write-up:

‘A beautiful, unsettling novel about rebellion and taboo, violence and eroticism, and the twisting metamorphosis of a soul Before the nightmares began, Yeong-hye and her husband lived an ordinary, controlled life. But the dreams—invasive images of blood and brutality—torture her, driving Yeong-hye to purge her mind and renounce eating meat altogether. It’s a small act of independence, but it interrupts her marriage and sets into motion an increasingly grotesque chain of events at home. As her husband, her brother-in-law and sister each fight to reassert their control, Yeong-hye obsessively defends the choice that’s become sacred to her. Soon their attempts turn desperate, subjecting first her mind, and then her body, to ever more intrusive and perverse violations, sending Yeong-hye spiraling into a dangerous, bizarre estrangement, not only from those closest to her, but also from herself.  Celebrated by critics around the world, The Vegetarian is a darkly allegorical, Kafka-esque tale of power, obsession, and one woman’s struggle to break free from the violence both without and within her.’

The Vegetarian is a novel written by the South Korean author Han Kang, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2024. In this novel, we meet Yeong-hye, who lives with her husband and leads an ordinary life, until she decides to become a vegan because of a dream she had. Her husband married her precisely because he is an ‘average man’ and also, according to him, Yeong-hye is also a traditional woman with whom he can have an ‘average’ life and this decision turned out to be a change too significant for him to tolerate. It was not just her husband who did not like her decision - even her parents did not support it and in a particular moment, her father tried to force her to eat meat. She stops eating altogether and leading to a further decline of her health. The novel follows her life - and from this portrait of Yeong-hye, the author shows us the patriarchy in South Korean society and the position of women in society.

I liked the beginning of the novel, which gave me a lot to look forward to - in a marriage where every day is the same, Yeong-hye suddenly decides to stop eating meat. We also see how her husband becomes more aggressive towards her, as if he had the right to interfere in her personal choices. I liked the bond between Yeong-hye and her sister, her only source of support in this choice of hers. The choice to change the narration in each chapter is an interesting one too, the first chapter from Yeong-hye's husband's point of view and the following chapters following a third person narration.

I had to think long and hard about writing something positive about the novel in the review and it's done now, with the preceding paragraph. Otherwise, I did not like the novel at all. Firstly, I found the title of the novel misleading, her family problems were not because she went vegan, but because she stopped eating, at all. As a vegan myself, I get a lot of weird questions in my day-to-day life from people around me - whether I'm feeling hungry, whether I'm getting enough nutrients, whether I'm taking any vaccinations, etc. A majority of the time, these are questions asked out of curiosity (though, sometimes also in bad faith) - but as with any movement or ideology, there is an extreme and here, Yeong-hye was an example of that extreme. I find that the misconception around vegans is because of such characters in pop culture (like films, TV shows, novels, etc.) that show this type of personality that all vegans are judged by.

I was able to sympathise with Yeong-hye and her predicament, but personally I could not identify with the act of deciding to stop eating completely because of a dream. The ending of the novel did not give hope either - I understand that in real life, not every situation has a definitive ending, but here - I did not see any ups and downs in the plot either. Apart from her sister Inghye, there was not much of  character development, with subtlety or complexity - they've all got villains - either Yeong-hye's husband or the rest of her family.

To conclude, it often happens to me that with author who win the Nobel Prize, either I love their works, like Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Albert Camus; or I do not like them at all, like last year's winner Jon Fosse and unfortunately, Han Kang will also fall into the same latter category. It was impossible for me to identify with the characters, and even if I had not been a vegan, I would not have liked the novel, but given that I am, this personal aspect added yet another reason why I did not enjoy it. Considering all the points I have made in this review, I give the novel a score of three out of ten.

Rating – 3/10

Have a nice day,
Andy