I was initially disappointed by Hell-Heaven.
Reading it, I felt as though Lahiri had dropped her trademark subtlety. The pervading theme of the tensions between the old and new, were laid to bare and obvious: conveyed through her plot points rather than her turns in language.
But -- as i read walking home from the metro-- the final pages literally stopped me in my tracks. It was as if her tricks of displaying the tensions within one sentence had been drawn out to the whole story. The end made the lack of subtlety in the rest of the story justified, in that it allowed the reader to sit back, lured into a sense of false security. But I think that hte last pages or so of Hell-Heaven could, in a way, stand asa mini story in and of itself. It felt a bit as though she was writing to get to those pages, and I wish that she could have gone back and put the gentleness with which she writes even the most horrific into the more mundane lead-up to the end of that story.
It's interesting that you thought that Only Goodness was out of her comfort zone, because although the topic was a little off of her standard fare, it seemed to me that she created a more consistent and compelling story there than she had in Hell-Heaven.
Sadia, or anyone else, why'd you think she was out of her zone?
Also, did anyone else get that nasty sense of de ja vu, having read a story or two here when they were originally published in The New Yorker?
~Leora