A recent review in The Annapurna Express critiques Kiran Desai's third novel, 'The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny', for its excessive length and perceived biases against Nepalis. The book, which took nearly 20 years to write, receives mixed praise for its early characters but criticism for a slow pace and rushed ending. Endorsements from authors like Ann Patchett highlight its literary ambition, yet the reviewer questions Desai's portrayals.
Kiran Desai's 'The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny', published in 2025 by Hamish Hamilton, spans 670 pages in hardcover. This follows her 2006 Man Booker Prize-winning second novel, 'The Inheritance of Loss', which sparked controversy in Nepal for its depiction of Nepalis as crooks and socially inferior, drawing accusations of insensitivity and prejudice.
The reviewer, who purchased the Rs 2000 book for its attractive deep blue cover featuring moon phases, initially enjoyed the first couple hundred pages. Characters appeared multilayered and relatable, with resonant lines prompting the reviewer to photograph passages for friends. Endorsements on the cover include Ann Patchett's description as 'a spectacular literary achievement', alongside praise from Khaled Hosseini, Mohsin Hamid, Junot Diaz, and Lauren Groff.
However, the narrative slowed after the halfway point, with unrelated instances weighing down the main plot. Parallel stories involving protagonists' relatives, such as aunt Mina Foi, created confusion over connections and events. The reviewer finished the book in January, reading 20 to 30 pages daily alongside a friend, but might have abandoned it otherwise. The ending felt rushed despite the overall length.
As a love story intertwined with immigration themes, the novel's issues are presented as complaints, diminishing their impact, and characters adopt a whiny tone that hindered empathy. The inclusion of a minor Nepali security guard character, referred to as 'Bahadur', echoes past criticisms and irks the reviewer, who questions why Nepalis are stereotyped in such roles while other immigrants appear as professionals. The reviewer concludes the book had a promising start but failed to deliver, viewing Desai as guided by fixed ideas and biases, reducing enthusiasm for future works.