My review wouldn't really do this justice but I do want to record what I thought of it just so I could refer to this when I reread this book (I hope I get the chance too anyway) and try to examine the book better? 
 1. I like her writing. I've seen some reviews here by people who thought it was too heavy, etc but I like it. 
 2. I loved how she organised her timeline in the book. It not only alternates between the now and then (because I never notice things like the date or the year), but even within the 'then' part it sort of goes backwards, so we see the consequences of "breaking the Love Laws" before even knowing how they were broken. And because of this timeline structure, we don't read the book with the fascination of what's-going-to-happen-to-them now that they've done this thing in this linear fashion, but more of a spiral where we are presented with contexts which allow us to understand some of the characters' actions to the heart of the issue. 
 3. Was a tad bit disappointed with what was the thing that broke the love laws in the first place. Thinking back now, there wasn't much else it could be, and I suppose it's the simplicity of the action which could produce such devastating consequences that supposed to be impactful? But I think Roy should have dealt more with the Love part of it than the Sexual part. (Gah, I'm not explaining this very well!) It's like this simple action seemingly more fueled by sexual desire is the one that caused all the horrifying consequences, but there are other smaller but seemingly more traumatising experiences like Estha and the OrangedrinkLemondrink man. Forget it, I'm just getting myself muddled up. 
 4. Love how everything is like... intertwined? Both in terms of plot (e.g. Rahel who mentioned seeing Velutha in the march, so he becomes the focus of Baby Kochamma's fury. This didn't seem very important to me at first, but towards the end of the book I realise why it's important) and writing (e.g. Pappachi's Moth used as a metaphor). 
 5. Someone mentioned in a review how Velutha actually had very little characterisation, compared to the rest. I didn't really notice it, but now I realise it :O Then I remembered I did notice it occasionally but it didn't really stick in my mind because I was so preoccupied with the other awesome bits. Towards the beginning of the book when it was described how a school was built for the Paravans so Velutha could join and how he was employed etc, I remember wanting to know whether he was grateful or resentful. Again, when Velutha participated in the march, I couldn't be surprised or oh-this-is-consistent-with-his-character-ish because I didn't really know anything about him. I supposed he was resentful because it showed by him participating in the march and his reaction when Mammachi was going nuts about the incident between him and Ammu, but through the way he played with Estha and Rahel and so on, he didn't seem resentful at all. Also, he striked me as a very calm and smart kind of person, so when he blabbed everything to Comrade Pillai (?) it was rather surprising. 
 But I suppose having a underdeveloped Velutha served another purpose? It places the focus on the family and its destruction as opposed to the injustice Velutha faced. I thought it sort of highlights that any Paravan could do his job in terms of driving the plot, but I realised that there is too much characterisation for that in the sense that not anyone (Touchables or Untouchables) would play with the children and so on. So it's sort of stuck in between. 
 6. I feel a little bad for the way Roy painted Baby. As in, there were enough characterisation for characters like Mammachi, Ammu, Chacko, Margaret to allow us to empathise with him. For example, when Ammu was telling Rahel about how careless words made people love her a little less, I was all how could she do that! but after understand Ammu's history I understood. I thought Margaret was selfish for leaving Chacko but after just a little portion of being in her head and seeing why she left him, I understood. But Baby just aggravated me for being "bitter and disappointed in Love" in the first place and how she was determined to sow these bitter seeds in everyone. And how she was to blame for lots of the things that went wrong. Even how she manipulated Mammachi and caused Velutha's final fate. 
 But essentially, (1) I LOVE THIS BOOK and (2) GO READ IT. But not if you're a younger reader (in terms of how much you've read, not in terms of age) who may not get her writing style/the timeline? (I'd feel very sad if people don't like this book because it's too confusing.)