Kiran Desai "s THE INHERITANCE OF LOSS did all Indians proud by winning the prestigious literary award-The Booker Prize at the age of 35 .Anita won the 50,000 pound prize in her first attempt while her mom Anita Desai remained a three time nominee for the prize. Kiran's sweeping novel “The inheritance of Loss” is a heart stirring saga of a retired embittered judge living on the foothills of the Himalaya set against the backdrop of the Nepalese insurgency. The story finds immense resonance in the heart of every ordinary Indian family and its subtle, tender humour coupled with powerful political events leaves an indelible impression on the mind of every reader.

Desai, who constantly shuffles between her homes in New-York and India faced tough competition from a number of literary heavyweights like Sarah Waters' "The Night Watch," Edward St Aubyn's "Mother's Milk," Kate Grenville's "The Secret River," M.J. Hyland's "Carry Me Down" and Hisham Matar's "In the Country of Men."

Previous youngest Woman Booker prize winner

The previous youngest winner in the prestigious Booker list was India's Arundhati Roy who won the prize at 36 for her hugely popular book “God of Small Things”. Arundhati's masterpiece was a “paradigm of poetry in prose” and encapsulated life in God's own country- Kerala.

Youngest Booker prize winner

The youngest Booker prize winner however was Ben Okri a Nigerian poet and Novelist who swept the award at the mere age of 32 for his empowering work “The Famished Road” .His work popularized the concept of fantasy literature where he writes eloquently of the mundane and the metaphysical. This is the story of a script child who never loses sight of his spirit world.

Booker prize winner of all times:

Salman Rushdie was named the Booker prize winner of all time for his work “Midnight's Children” .Rushdie the popular favorite was chosen from a shortlist of six which included works by works by JM Coetzee, Nadine Gordimer, Pat Barker, Peter Carey and JG Farrell. This sprawling novel won the booker prize in1981 and the Booker of Bookers in 1993.

Booker Facts

The prize founded in 1969 recognizes and rewards writers from Britain, Ireland, South Africa or a Commonwealth country. The winner is assured instant fame and the “bestseller tag” around the globe. The award sponsored by the futures brokers Man group is also at times identified by the controversies it invariably stirs. A number of readers and writers unequivocally feel that the winner appeals only to the erudite, elite literary academicians.

So for all of you confused about what to read…. considering one of the above mentioned novels could be a great way to imbibe the aromas of the worlds best literary masterpieces. .Do take time out for it.

One of the times when this is shown is when Donna and Errol have a debate about the tour that is organized by Miss Ashbridge. They each bring up interesting points, which are clearly laid put and shows the reader their side of the debate. These points let the reader think about topic with the point in mind. This makes it very interesting to read and learn about the issue.

Another reason why the novel was worth reading is because it gives actual facts on what happened under the apartheid regime in South Africa. In the novel, details are given about some of the things that happened in South Africa. This gives a better picture or idea to the reader about what really happened which is essential to fully understand the views held by each of the character in the novel. One of these details is the chapter where some of the characters watch a film about Sharpeville and the riot on the police station there.

Also, later in the book, when the main characters are on a march, there is reference to Steve Biko, a South African freedom fighter. With this information in the book, the points made by the characters will be generally understood better. It also gives the book an element of realism.

The third reason why the novel was worth reading is because of the insight it gives into the impact that the tour had on New Zealand society. In the novel, parts of the story occur at home or school. Disruption because of the tour the tour occurs at these places dividing the students and the family. Also, the severity and plethora of the marches are shown with the masses of people protesting for their chosen side.

For example, in Alan/s household, his father is pro-tour, while his mother is anti-tour. Also, in marches, the protesters clashed quite violently with the police, showing strong belief of their view. Both of the pro and anti-tour groups cause disruptions to the tour and one-another. Through the novel we learn more about what happened during the uneasy time in the history of the tour in New Zealand.

As explained above, there are a number of reasons why The Name of the Game is worth reading. It is such a good book to read because it shows the reader different sides to the tour, it gives actual facts on what happened under the apartheid regime in South Africa and that it gives insight into the impact that the tour had on New Zealand society.

As Winston Churchill said, “I am easily satisfied with the very best.” So become satisfied and read this book!

• Rumors are that Harry's mum eyes are very important.
• A muggle will use magic.
• The last word is scar.
• Victor krum will make a return.
• The door in book 5 that Sirius falls through might be in it.
• The flying motorbike in book 1 returns.

The bet has been argued to be many different aspects. It was stated in the story, “I'll bet you two millions you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years” (1). Taking this idea as the bet, it was shown at the end of the story that the lawyer lost the bet. The rule was clearly stated, “The slightest attempt on his part to break the conditions, if only two minuets before the end, released the banker from the obligation to pay him two millions” (2). It was apparent that the rules were established, but violated. The lawyer stated, “I shall go out from here fire minutes before the time fixed, and so break the compact…Next morning…they had seen the man who lived in the lodge climb out of the window into the garden, go to the gate, and disappear” (5). It is clear that the lawyer's action was to forfeit the bet by leaving and therefore the banker winning the bet.

There has also been another argument of the idea of the bet. It has been argued that bet was not if the lawyer could stay in confinement for fifteen years; rather it was the original argument in which the bet had arose from. This argument was stated as, “Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?” (1). The lawyer had chose life imprisonment to be better by saying, “To live anyhow is better than not at all” (1). The lawyer however stated in his letter to the banker, “…I despise wisdom and the blessings of this world. It is all worthless, fleeting, illusory, and deceptive, like a mirage” (5) showing he has changed his opinion about the matter. By the end of the story, he admitted that he despised everything in life including life itself due to his suffering of fifteen years. He would have rather died than to have slowly suffered for those fifteen years and therefore, giving up his argument that life imprisonment is better than death.

In addition to the argument of what the bet was, there has been argument that the lawyer had actually won because he had learned more during his time in confinement. However, there is no indication from the story that winning the bet involves gaining any knowledge. It was obviously stated in the story as an argument between the ideas of life imprisonment and death and the bet place on the wager of fifteen years of the lawyer's life and the banker's two million dollars. The argument present by me both times is reasonable in the sense that there is a potential winner for both sides and that it follows the story verbatim.

Through facts and opinions presented, it is clear why the banker is the winner of the bet. The lawyer had violated one of the rules of the bet; breaking the confinement prior to the fifteen year term is complete, resulting in the banker winning the bet. The lawyer had also admitted in his letter that death is a better off than life imprisonment. He had regretted accepting the bet with the banker. These are only samples of potentially more examples to prove those who oppose the idea that the banker won wrong. Though many will still oppose this ruling, these reasons presented remain valid.