ah, the thing is, as a musician you should have appreciated the whole point of the book, which was, er, that it's a jolly clever thing - the writing style/ form echoes that of the writing style of a fugue. apparently a fugue has a particularly distinctive form, which the text echoes. (no idea if i'm making sense)
so essentially - each bit of the book is written the way it is because that way the book itself is a fugue in written form.
i had no idea about this until our book club did it. none of us liked it very much, excpet the music teacher/ composer, who was able to explain rpoperly (unlike me) why it was so clever.
so, i have a new found admiration for the book, and fully intend to read it again once i work out what characterisitics make a piece of work a fugue.
i think it's the 'question and answer' thing. so mathematically each note/ bar (whatever they are called) has a response, which is somehow mathematically the 'proper' response to the 'question' note/ bar.
does anyone know what i'm on about? it all sounded very plausible after a bottle glass of vino...
ultimately, i think vikram seth is a bit up himself, but usually i like that in an author. so i liked the book a whole lot more when i realised there was a whole subtext which i had totally missed.