[There] is a monotonous sameness in [Jhabvala's] writing: in the kinds of characters chosen, the angles from which they are observed. More important, there is no progress towards a deepening of insights about the social forces at work in [India], no striving to understand these. Indeed, the writer shows no inclination whatsoever even to attempt to go beyond the facile emotional reactions to what she observes on the Indian social scene. (p. 219)
[The kind of characters who inhabit the Jhabvala world are recurring stereotypes.] What is monotonous about all these one-dimensional stereotypes is that there is no objectivity or depth in their depiction. No attempt is made to understand and to project through the types the social pressures which produce such characters, the motivating forces and value systems that drive them to be what they are. There is observation in the novels and short stories, but not insight, analysis, or psychological depth. Perceived behaviour is all [that] Jhabvala seems to be able to cope with.
This is a free excerpt of 165 words. There are 836 words (approx.
3 pages at 300 words per page) in the full critical essay.
Read the rest of this Criticism with our Jhabvala, Ruth Prawer 1927–: Critical Essay by Eunice De Souza Access Pass.
