Keenan Vyas

Basically an allegorical tale of the narrator's tumultuous relationship with America, this is a short, but dense story and would be worth a second read, if only to pick out some details which may have been glossed over initially. The delivery is candid, but tense and the content is both timely and relevant with implications on both geographies of experience, his original Pakistan and his adopted America.

The title of the book can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. At first glance it seems that our protagonist is a budding political or religious fundamentalist, struggling with memories and unresolved personal torments from his time in the States and headed towards an unquestioned destiny of Islamic or nationalist extremism. However, during his flashbacks of New York he makes frequent reference to his valuation firm’s mantra, “focus on the fundamentals”, in this case the fundamentals of finance and valuation. His eventual rejection of the corporate world and of America generally begins with an initial hesitation to focus on the fundamentals of a particular work engagement, and develops into a reluctance to fully accept a communion with this lifestyle. At first enthusiastic towards his job offer, circle of friends, and his day to day routine, his commitment seems to dwindle almost at the same pace of his deterioration with his romantic interest, Erica. Pay close attention to the events he experiences with her just prior to his business trip to Manila and his subsequent reaction to 9/11 while there. When their relationship is on a high, he experiences euphoria for his American life. As their relationship becomes more complicated, with instances of rejection and twisted forms of forced intimacy his views and feelings towards America change.

Further to this last point, I don’t think it is a coincidence that Hamid chose the name “Changez” (the Urdu form of Genghis) for our protagonist, as it can also be mispronounced or interpreted as “changes”, reflecting an ongoing process of development and devolution, or perhaps evolution, into another state of mind and frame of reference.

Overall, this is a strong book and was worthy of its consideration for the Man Booker. I would highly recommend it to anyone with a mild curiosity in it.

At times self-aggrandizing and unbelievable and with prose and style that isn't anything worth clamouring over, this is a good novel overall, an interesting plot and a quick and easy read, despite coming in at just over 900 pages.

My main criticism is that Roberts demonstrates throughout the novel that he is capable of a higher writing form, but he usually devolved back into a style that I found hurried, untimely, and sometimes sloppy. Too many plot twists were conveniently placed and predictable. Some of the characters were simply flat with more emphasis on their physical descriptions rather than in the development of their peronsality and human traits.

Also, scattered with references to what I perceived as popular lollipop philosophy, Roberts does not do a great job of building and supporting his characters' philosophical assumptions on life, something the reader is bomarded with again and again. If this was a primary goal of the book then he would have done well to construct a more thorough and well-thought philosophy. Indeed he could have accomplished this as he certainly didn't seem concerned with the length of the book. Further to this last point, even though the read goes quickly, it was too long and redundant with repetitive sub-plots which only added marginal value to the overall work.

If there is a modest curiousity in this book then I would recommend it. Rumor has it that this is one of a possible 3 or 4 part series. If this is true then I am not convinced that I could commit myself to reading future installments unless Roberts mixes it up a bit and attempts to challenge his readership a bit more than he has with this first publication.

There is no disputing that Naipaul is condescending, caustic, orientalist, a colonial apologist for British rule, and downright offensive, if not racist in his presentation of India, his grandfather’s homeland. However, with all of this in mind, the book is actually enjoyable and should be read more as a narrative comedy than a serious work of cultural or historical analysis. Naipaul is first and foremost a writer of fiction and it is very obvious that many of the events in this book are dramatized, if not embellished, for the sake of storytelling. I read this on a recent trip to India and, I’ll admit, I had to put the book down because it’s overwhelming negativity. The descriptions of his encounters made me fixate on all of those things a traveler to India may find annoying, distasteful, and even painful. However, it was finally worth finishing if only to gain a little insight into the mindset of a prolific writer, who seems to feel displaced as an outsider in the land of his cultural roots. If you are traveling to India and want a good travel read (and need to get away from Lonely Planet, etc.), stick to Nehru’s “The Discovery of India” or “India After Gandhi” by Ramachandra Guhu. If you do decide to read this or another one of Naipaul’s works on the subcontinent while traveling there, try not to take his experiences and claims so seriously. Between all the subtle insults and depressing commentary there is some good satire, focusing on the evolving contradictions and ironies that are the Indian travel experience.

A lot of the criticism I’ve heard about this book revolves around Dr. Yunus’ perceived idealism regarding business as a “social enterprise”. His critics miss the fact that he is, in general, a pragmatic practitioner; simply look at the success of his Grameen Group of companies. Dr. Yunus has always advocated sustainability in social organizations which is why Grameen Bank’s loans, instead of being subsidized, yield market competitive interest rates. Instead of relying on the goodwill of donors and charitable organizations, his organizations are able to grow organically and therefore have a larger positive impact on the poor in Bangladesh. His models in the 1970s have influenced the design and operation of thousands of microfinance institutions across the world. While I agree that the design of social business will not operate exactly as Dr. Yunus describes, I do believe that we could continue to see more partnerships and collaboration between multi-national corporations and microfinance institutions at a grassroots or regional level, similar to the Grameen-Danone Group model. I do agree with Dr. Yunus that modern economic theory presupposes the one-dimensional “profit-maximizing” individual, but I also believe that social business will require some sort of an economic incentive, however minimal, in order to be successful. Recall that Danone Group did require a 2 percent return on their investment in order to convince their shareholders of the value in a partnership with Grameen Bank. Overall, it is better to have the vision of someone like Dr. Yunus in mind, despite how improbable the outcome seems. I'm sure the very thought of providing loans, savings, and other financial services to the marginalized poor appeared outrageous to the formal financial sector fifty years ago.

After about two hundred pages of reading through Bookstaber’s professional experience in risk management on Wall Street in excruciating detail (he even takes care to describe office floor plans and seating arrangements), he finally pinpoints the two biggest challenges facing the financial markets today; the complexity of design in financial instruments and their tight coupling with the broader capital markets, allowing for little flexibility and response time in the case of any sort of downturn. Although written before this most recent financial meltdown and therefore with no mention or reference to MBS and the credit crunch specifically, this book is both timely and relevant in the face of forthcoming discussions on regulation and banking reform.