zBlogging the Literary Life - Period 6/7 - AP College English - 2005/2006 - Oak Park River Forest High School

Creepy Men

Doesn't the creepy man in Monsoon Wedding, I can't remember his name, but he offered to pay for all the schooling for the cousin. I hope that whoever reads this knows who I'm talking about. But, does he not scream Orangedrink Lemondrink Man? I think he does.

This makes me wonder, although I know there are many creepy men in our society, why the people sexually harrassed in the indian culture get almost no sympathy. For example, Ammu unconsciously refuses to see that her child has been molested. And, in Monsoon Wedding, the father is laughing and hugging the guy that (I'm probably sure) molested his niece. Why is this? Don't you think that sexual harrassment in our culture is, by comparison, looked for or sought out? Does this extend to the culture in America, or am I only thinking Oak Park here?

... I know, a lot of interesting questions.

Give me a towel...

...because I sweat God of Small Things.

As I was reading the book, however, Roy's change of time perspective reminded me of my favorite line in all of literature (at least thus far in my life). Such a line occurs in James Joyce's Portrait of the Man as a Young Man. I know so many of you looooved reading this book, however, the line I speak of plays a vital role in the history theme of God of Small Things. Joyce wrote, "the past is consumed in the present and the present is living only because it brings forth the future."  As Roy tried to portray in her writing, that history is not only the past, but also the present and the future, Joyce's words combine these three time periods into a cohesive idea. She also gets this idea across through her purposeful "jumpy writing style." I wonder if she had this quote in mind as she wrote GoST. Probably not, but it's a really cool line nonetheless.

Existentialism in The God of Small Things

Yesterday, during the group collaberation, I brought up existentialism in The God of Small Things, and Mr. Heidkamp made a note that it was me who brought it up and not him.  However, I also noted that I thought it was his divorce with Margaret that brought this view upon him. 

As I look at the book now, I have changed my mind.  Existentialists do not care about life's occurences, and it is apparent that Chacko does not care about them either long before he marries Margaret.  When he first met Margaret and brought her over to his dorm, she noted that he was not organized and that clothes hung everywhere.  In the book it was stated, "Books, empty wine bottles, dirty underwear, and cigarette butts littered the floor," (232).  This apparent laziness to me shows Chacko's carelessness towards his own hygiene and appearance.  Also, he got a badly paid job while they were married showing even more carelessness towards life.  When Margaret found out she was pregnant, she decided to leave Chacko to find a man who would be more supportive.  Chacko left for India, and whenever somebody asked him about Margaret, he would say, "she traded me in for a better man," (236).  The fact that he is displaying himself like this shows that he does not care about his self-portrait, and existentialists do not care about life nor its occurences.  Therefore, I believe that existentialists would behave and act the same as Chacko would. 

This is my take.  Do you believe existentialists act the same way as Chacko does? 

Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?

This is kind of a moral question, and I'm just wondering what everyone thinks of it. I'm focusing on pages 300-305, when Baby Kochamma tells Estha and Rahel how terrible they are for killing Sophie mol, and terrifies them with her description of jails in India. She puts them on a guilt trip not only for killing Sophie mol, but also because she says Ammu will go to jail also, because of them. Then she proposes something to make up for what they have done: Just answer yes when the inspector asks them a question. We the readers are to infer that the question was, "Did Velutha abduct you?" or something along those lines. Baby Kochamma tells Estha and Rahel that Velutha is going to die anyway, which turns out to be true, because he dies later that night, I think. So my question is, is that morally right? But think about this for a second, I know right off the bat you obviously want to say no, because that is lying since Velutha didn't do anything to Estha and Rahel. But is it right for Ammu to get punished because she disobeyed the Caste system? That is only one of several issues present in this question, but I'm just wondering what everyone thinks, because I still haven't reached a conclusion.

Let me just beat the caste drum some more

Most of us can agree that the Caste System is a central idea that Roy uses in her novel.  As several others have noted, the inter-caste conflicts are the source of struggle within the novel between Ammu and Velutha.  This tradition has held her back -- as well as many others -- keeping the family condemned to always return to Ayemenem.  This is where history steps in, and shows who is loved, and how, and how much.

But this statement is (obviously) not a new idea.  The communist revolution that takes place during part of the novel is an outlet for Untouchables like Velutha (and many more) to express unrest.  Similarly, many Europeans underwent many governmental struggles in an attempt to cure this unrest, and remove hindrances such as the ones in GoST.

This is where an interesting connection can be made.  A man by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a book called Democracy in America, where he speculated on the future of democracy in America.  He attempted to assess what is different in America to make such a system work, where it had failed overseas for centuries.  Apparent to de Tocqueville is our stress on equality and liberty.  We, as Americans, reject the idea of classes.

In our early discussions of GoST, we mentioned the God of Big Things, and the tone Roy uses and possible audience she is speaking to.  I believe we came to a (semi-)conclusion that she seems to speak to Americans, who do not have a History House that hinders mobility.  As a matter of fact, we encourage mobility.  Case-in-point: immigrants come to America to "start over".  This could an explanation.  For a lot of stuff.

VH1 Behind the Music: Vellya Paapen

Alright, so I've been appointed the Vellya Paapen passage blogger, and I'm going to try not to repeat too much of what Polly said in her post, so here goes...

This passage (pp. 240-244) is describing Vellya Paapen's shame towards his son's and Ammu's love affair.  Vellya Paapen, though an untouchable, has learned to accept his fate, because, as an Indian, he probably figures that he did something wrong in previous lives to get there in the first place.  Vellya Paapen was bought an eye by Mammachi's family, and to try and repent for his son's atrocities, he wants to give the eye back.  He feels that he does not deserve the basic human necessity of sight (though I suppose he can't see with a fake eye anyway) because Velutha has gone against his Paravan morals.

One part of this passage that I thought was interesting was on p. 241 when Roy says "Vellya Paapen climbed up the kitchen steps and offered her his mortgaged eye.  He held it out in the palm of his hand.  He said he didn't deserve it and wanted her to have it back."  This struck me because Vellya Paapen is acting towards Mammachi the same way Velutha acted towards Ammu when he was giving her the boats and boxes many years ago (in the sense that he's sticking out his hand and trying to touch the touchable as little as humanly possible).  It was also interesting to me because I have never heard of a body part being "mortgaged" before.  This showed me that Vellya Paapen truly feels as though he deserves nothing because he is in the lowest caste.

So, just like in class, I'd like to hear from anyone if they have anything to add/object to.  Oh, and sorry about the really lame title...

History House

In class today we had a discussion on the History house, in The god of small things. Chacko says the house is when people are locked out, because they tend to shun their own culture. People start to assimilate to their rulers instead of being proud of their culture. I like how Chacko also describes how the problems in history are just a blink of the eye in Earth woman's eye. He has an existentialist point of view about life. Roy uses so much great imagery and language. The way Velutha is described is amazing. I was laughing at Mr. H one day, because he read the passage of the description of Velutha out loud. It was hilarious. 

Estha's Querencia

In Chapter 10, “The River in the Boat,” Estha disappears behind the gauze doors of the Paradise Pickles factory to Think Two Thoughts.  It is a comforting place for Estha not only because it can hide him from Orangedrink Lemondrink man, but also because the surroundings are familiar.  “The smell of asafetida stung his nostrils, but Estha was used to it, loved it.  The place that he found to think in was between the wall and the black iron cauldron in which a batch of freshly boiled (illegal) banana jam was slowly cooling” (185).

He ponders the Two Thoughts while he stirs the jam (notice the allusion to Macbeth on page 186… “Fire burn, banana bubble”).  Stirring the jam is empowering for Estha because it allows him to recall the honor of copying Ammu’s banana jam recipe.  He also benefits from the personal satisfaction of knowing that he is getting away with something that is illegal.  He finds the courage to tell Rahel his plan to visit Kari Saipu’s House.  Not even the house’s haunted history can discourage him while he is in the factory.  Here, he discovers both his determination and his querencia.     

Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind

I read the song that Ammu listens to before running to the river to meet Velutha and was reminded of something I had discussed in my philosophy class. Here is the song to refresh your memories:
"There's no time to lose/ I heard her day/ Cash your dreams before/ They slip away/ Dying all the time/ Lose your dreams and you/ Will lose your mind"(314). In philosophy we talked about the term "en soi", which translates directly to mean "in itself". It often depicts the state of those who are dead- it entails a life that is closed and finished. Most importantly, it depicts a life that is no longer lived through possibility. There is no capability to change or redfeem. So how does all this relate to the song and Ammu? I was thinking that the dream that the song refers to is really a desire for possibility, a desire to change. Doesn't Ammu hate that her life appears to be fated for her? Doesn't she seem to hate that she can predict its ending? She is restricted by so many institutions. And, in fact, she appears to be living a dead life. It is no wonder that she runs to the river to find Velutha, to somehow awaken what is still living inside of her. OK, I hope that some of that made sense to someone besides me. It was knid of hard to explain. Ask me if you don't get it!

Influence of the Caste System

Throughout the book God of Small Things, the influence of the caste system keeps getting mentioned. On pages 240-245, the weight of the caste system is clearly demonstrated. In this specific passage, Vellya Paapen visits Mammachi and Baby Kochamma. He is drunk, wet, and holding out his glass eyeball for Mammachi. Mammachi had paid for his glass eyeball and Vellya Paapen thought she should have it back. He goes on to tell Mammachi about the love relationship that Velutha and Ammu are having. He seems embarrassed by his son’s relationship after all Mammachi’s family has done for his ‘untouchable’ family. He even offers to kill his own son. On page 242 it says: “The lovers. Sprung from his loins and hers. His son and her daughter. They had made the unthinkable thinkable and the impossible really happen.” This quote defines the distinct class lines. When Mammachi discovers Ammu’s love affair, she is enraged. She feels as though the reputation of her and her family is completely ruined. She believes that generations to come will whisper in secrecy about her family’s mistake. When speaking to the police officer, Baby Kochamma even misrepresents the relationship between Ammu and Velutha to save the family reputation. Before reading this passage, I did not understand the gravity of violating the boundaries of the caste system had on Mammachi. I also thought Roy’s descriptions throughout this passage showed the severity of Mammachi’s rage well.