Step 1 : Understanding the Question:
This question presents an Assertion (A) and a Reason (R) comparing two of Anita Desai's early novels, Voices in the City and Cry, the Peacock. We need to evaluate whether both statements are correct and if the Reason explains the Assertion.
Step 2 : Key Formulas and Approach:
The approach lies in the literary criticism of Anita Desai's narrative techniques. We analyze the aesthetic impact of the singular, intense psychological narrative voice of Maya in Cry, the Peacock and compare it with the multi-perspective, wider canvas of Voices in the City.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
$\bullet$ Anita Desai is celebrated for introducing psychological realism into Indian English fiction, focusing on the inner lives and emotional distress of her protagonists.
$\bullet$ Assertion (A) is correct because critics generally consider Voices in the City to be less unified and satisfying than Cry, the Peacock, despite having richer descriptions and a broader social backdrop.
$\bullet$ Reason (R) is correct because it identifies the structural cause of this critical consensus. While Cry, the Peacock is completely unified by the obsessive, singular perspective of Maya, Voices in the City distributes its focus among three siblings, resulting in a fragmented sensibility.
$\bullet$ Because the lack of a single, central controlling consciousness in Voices in the City directly explains why it is perceived as less psychologically cohesive and satisfying, the Reason provides a valid explanation for the Assertion.
Step 4 : Final Answer:
Consequently, both (A) and (R) are correct, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
The correct option is (A) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).