Tag Archives: SWF

Amitav Ghosh’s Ghost-Eye and the book clubs

Amitav Ghosh, Ghost-Eye (John Murray Publishers 2026)

Before the meetings: I loved Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis trilogy – Sea of Poppies, River of Smoke and Flood of Fire (links are to my blog posts) for their exuberant language, their array of brilliant characters and their remorseless portrayal of British colonialism.

Ghost-Eye is a very different animal. It’s set in the recent past and present. Its characters live mainly in urban India and Brooklyn, with excursions to a remote village in the Sundarbans in the Ganges Delta. The main action involves westernised characters coming to terms with a case of reincarnation that is gradually revealed to be something even more challenging to Western ways of thought. The academics who take the incursions from the ‘other reality’ seriously are described as being ‘woowoo’, but the book – in my reading at least – asks us to take them seriously as an alternative to the western culture’s extractive, reductive, and now catastrophic dealings with the natural world.

I found the book didactic, plodding, and often incoherent. I was unconvinced by the characters. Where in previous books Ghosh’s play with language has thrilled me, the one distinctive use of language in this book is an irritating attempt at a hip young person’s dialogue.

It turns out that page 79* is a good place from which to launch a description of the book as a whole:

Four of the book’s main characters appear here.

Varsha, the subject of conversation, is the book’s central phenomenon. The book begins in 1969, when she is a three-year-old living in an extravagantly wealthy, strictly vegetarian family in Calcutta. One day, to her parents’ consternation, she asks for fish and refuses to eat anything else. Fish has never been in their house, and none of the servants would ever dare to break the rigid prohibition. A doctor is called in, and after spending time with Varsha, decides that this is a job for his wife, a psychologist who has dealt with ‘several cases of this type’ – that is, he explains, children who remember past lives. End chapter one.

Back to page 79: Monty is that doctor. In spite of being the one who first broached the subject of past lives, he is the book’s main voice of ineffectual scepticism. Shoma is his wife. She has done a lot of research into ‘cases of the reincarnation type’ in collaboration with a professor from the University of Virginia, and she has conducted tests with Varsha that convince her she really does remember a past life.

The other character named on this page is Dev, a refugee from Burma who is a servant in the household.

After a long session with Varsha, Shoma has had a vivid dream in which the little girl came to her bedroom and stared at her through the mosquito net. When she wakes up there are three knots in the string binding the net to the bedpost:

‘Shoma!’ said Monty sharply. ‘Of course there are knots in the string. That’s what it’s there for – to hold up the net. It has to be tied, doesn’t it?’
Shoma began to chew her lip. ‘It’s just that when I went into Varsha’s room yesterday, she was playing with a piece of string, tying knots. Her ayah said that she’s been doing that a lot lately.’
‘What does that have to do with our mosquito net?’ said Monty in astonishment. ‘Shoma, get a grip on yourself –’

You can hear the Twilight Zone music playing. Not only can this little girl remember a past life as a fish-eater, but is she also capable of out-of-the-body travel? And wait, there’s more:

Monty was interrupted by a loud thumping on the stairwell door.
He went to see who it was and came back looking puzzled. ‘It was Dev,’ he said. ‘He wanted to know if you were all right.’
Shoma stared at him. ‘You mean he knew I had a nightmare? How is that possible?’
‘Who knows?’ Monty shrugged. ‘Let’s go and sit on the veranda; it’s nice and cool out there.’

Ooooh, here’s something psychic about Dev too!

Out on the veranda, Shoma and Monty labour the point:

‘I just can’t stop thinking about that dream,’ Shoma said, sinking into her easy chair. ‘To be honest, it didn’t even feel like a dream; it was as if Varsha was really there, watching me through the mosquito net.’
‘Now, now, Shoma,’ said Monty. ‘You’re just imagining all this.’

Your mileage may vary, but that reads us pure clunk to me. It comes as no surprise that Varsha does indeed turn out to have amazing supernatural powers, and so does Dev. Towards the end of the book there is a twist in which even more people recover memories of past lives and discover that reality is much richer, more mysterious and full of possibility than their limited western mindset has allowed them to understand. And in this discovery lies the possibility of averting the climate crisis. To which I say, Bollocks!

There’s a lot of power in the proposition that Indigenous knowledge and ways of understanding the world will be crucial in dealing with climate change. But to conflate Indigenous knowledge with acceptance of the literal reality of reincarnation, mind-reading, astral travel and a string of other paranormal phenomena, as this book does, is a travesty. It may be that the book and I just got off on the wrong foot and I couldn’t recover. Maybe it’s meant to be just a bit of fun and I’ve misread its tone completely. It’s being read by both my groups – the BookGroup and the Book Club – so I hope to hear from people it worked for.

Back to page 79:

Outside, as happened every day at dawn, municipal workers were washing the street with hosepipes, and in the distance, across the lake, vultures were slowly taking wing, rising into the sky, one by one, on an upwelling early-morning thermal.
Monty, meanwhile, was leaning over the veranda’s balustrade, waiting for the newspaper boy to throw up the two dailies, English and Bangla, that were delivered to them every day, both rolled into stiff batons and secured with strings made of coconut husk. Monty liked to think that if he succeeded in catching even one of the papers in mid-air, the day would be off to a good start. As for the occasions when he caught both, he would radiate good cheer all day.

This paragraph reminds me that the book has its pleasures, including a vivid evocation of places, but especially the Indian ones. This is middle-class Calcutta in the 1960s, where vultures catch thermals and newspapers are delivered daily. You have to love the detail of that coconut-husk string. And neither Monty nor I feel any need to reconcile his moment of idiosyncratic superstition with a hard, logical view of the world.

The Book Club meeting: I was the only one who had trouble with the book’s preternatural elements. Everyone else enjoyed the yarn, some as pure fantasy, at least one as playfully challenging reductive materialism. I’m left with the odd sense that I’ve misread the book, but can’t undo that reading.

Ghost-Eye was one of three books discussed at the Book Club. It will also be discussed at the Book Group‘s next meeting, which I will not be able to attend. If I glean any further insights from reports of that meeting, I’ll add a note here.


The Book Club’s five members are all of settler heritage. We met on Gadigal land, and I have written this blog post on Gadigal and Wangal land. I gratefully acknowledge the Elders past and present who have cared for this beautiful country for millennia, and welcome any First Nations readers of this blog.


My blogging practice is to focus on the page that coincides with my age, currently 79.

Sydney Writers’ Festival 2026: My Day One, part 1

The Sydney writers’ Festival is one of the highlights of my year. The venue, the Carriageworks, is a comfortable 40 minute walk from home. Though there are fewer free events than there used to be, the trade-off for the extra expense is the absence of huge queues with the prospect of a terrible seat, or no seat at all.

When I walked into Carriageworks early on Thursday afternoon I spotted volumes of Tony Abbott’s Australia: A History piled right next to Randa Abdel-Fattah’s Discipline on the Gleebooks tables. I had arrived.

I got to my first session with minutes to spare, though because of problems with the sound system the session started late, so I had time to catch my breath.

1 pm: Holding Up the Mirror

This was a panel of three Jews reflecting on the current rise of anti-semitism in Australia, with Avril Alba, professor of Holocaust Studies and Jewish Civilisation at the University of Sydney, as a restrained, non-interventionist facilitator.

Lee Kofman, with flaming hair and a strong Russian/Ukrainian accent, appeared on this blog years ago for an essay about scars on women’s bodies (link here), which I mention only because she said that before Hamas’s 7 October massacre in Israel and the Israeli government’s horrific response, she wrote about personal things, including women’s issues and migrants’ concerns, but since then, and especially since the mass shooting at Bondi last December, she has been driven to write about Jewish issues.

Michael Visontay interviewed Ittay Flescher on a feed from Israel at last year’s festival (blog post here). This year he speaks for himself. He writes for the Jewish Independent – and says that the main effect that the Gaza genocide and Bondi murders have had on his writing is that he recognises more than ever the importance of being precise. In any conversation, with Jews and non-Jews alike, he feels the question before anyone says a word: where do you stand in relation to what’s happening in Palestine–Israel?

Jon Sopel, an English journalist, quoted Jonathan Miller’s quip that he wasn’t a Jew, but Jew-ish. (He mis-attributed the line to the very Jewish Woody Allen.) He was just finishing his book about returning to the UK after eight years in the USA when 7th October happened, and he realised he had to address anti-semitism and his own identity as a Jew.

The conversation ranged over a lot of hot-button topics. Is anti-Zionism antisemitic? Is the left’s wholehearted support of Palestinians tainted with antisemitism? Would people talk of a Blak person’s experience of ‘real or perceived racism’ as they talk of a Jew’s experience of ‘real or perceived antisemitism’? To what extent have concerns about anti-semitism led to a shutting down of free speech? What does it mean that in some places the extreme right have taken up anti-antisemitism?

All three panellists said they abhorred Netanyahu’s war on Gaza. None of them is actively religious. Antisemitism is viscerally important to all of them.

John Sopel, perhaps because he had more distance from recent horrific killings in Sydney, was able to offer a little historical perspective. He spoke of the way Sephardic Jews were mainly assimilated in Britain, and then in the early 20th century Ashkenazi Jews began to arrive, fleeing Russian pogroms. Institutions were established to help the newcomers assimilate. Lee said, correctly, that historically there hasn’t been safety in assimilation, but I would have loved someone to talk about the similar project of assimilation in Australia. (I believe, for instance that rabbis in the early 1900s wore Roman collars, so that Judaism presented itself as another denomination, rather than a whole other religion.) I guess that’s another subject.

My companion and I came away with a lot to talk about, but talking had to wait, because the session finished late and our next one was well under way when we shuffled as undisruptively as possible into our seats.

2 pm: Tayari Jones: Kin

Tayari Jones, African American novelist, was in conversation with Shankari Chandran. I haven’t read anything by either author, but I loved this conversation.

Tayari Jones’s most recent novel is Kin. Her previous one, An American Marriage (2018), was a critical and popular success, but then in May 2020 George Floyd was murdered and she found she couldn’t write. Until then she had thought writer’s block was an invented excuse for laziness, but faced with this harsh reminder of the depth of racism in her country she was overwhelmed with a sense of the futility of writing fiction. After a time, she realised that though a book could not put out a fire, ‘a book was what I had.’ At which Shankari Shadran exclaimed, ‘I think there are a lot of writers in this room who needed to hear that!’

It was an interesting conversation. Jones spoke of her childhood in Atlanta, Georgia, where the majority of the population is Black. She didn’t encounter white racism as a major thing when she was young: class was much more visible to her. There was a serial killer who preyed on children: in another part of the USA the press would have described his victims as Black children, but in Atlanta they were described as poor, or at least that’s how young Tayari saw it.

Among other things, Jones said that she was inspired by one of the slogans on the wall of her school – perhaps the Benjamin Elija Mays High School. The quote, roughly from Robert Browning’s poem ‘Andrea del Sarto’: ‘Your reach should exceed your grasp.’ This, she said, has stayed with her, reminding her not to settle into a rut. It occurs to me it’s a good thing for me to bear in mind as a reader as well, in two ways: first, not to shy away from difficult texts (see my future blog post on Jill Jones’s How to Emerge, with which I am currently struggling); and second, to appreciate when a piece of writing is ambitious in a good way even if it doesn’t quite pull it off.

I’m writing this when the festival is over. It’s interesting to note that both these sessions dealt with the way terrible events had a dramatic impact on a writer’s practice. This turned out to be a recurring topic. The festival’s motto, ‘Show me the truth,’ could easily have been swapped for, ‘What the heck just happened?’


The Sydney Writers’ Festival is happening on unceded Gadigal land. I have written this blog post on Gadigal and Wangal land. I acknowledge their Elders past and present, and welcome First Nations readers of this blog.