Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

A "Meet the Author" Opportunity: Arundhati Roy

The last book we will be reading this year (both before and after the AP exam) is The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, an Indian author who is also well-known as a global activist fighting against both governmental and corporate imperialism and on behalf of the poor.

Roy is coming to speak in Chicago, on March 18, at 7:00pm at the Thorne Auditorium, part of Northwestern University's downtown campus.  The title of her talk is "Field Notes on Democracy" -- and knowing Roy, it will be controversial and thought-provoking.

Anyway, I'll be going -- and I'll buy dessert for anyone who joins me beforehand at the Foodlife food court in Water Tower.   Tickets are $6, and you can get them here.

Juices Truces: The Conclusion

It’s been months since the initial spark of disappointing reading and stage performances that lead me to write about poorly crafted language, tone, and adaptation and what I thought were ways to resolve those problems. I guess I ranted about how Roy didn’t consider the nuance of subjective states while purveying an intricate story that would be dependent on them. Why, for instance, would she describe events simultaneously from a subjective child’s point of view and an objective writer’s ability? I felt that it made for confusing scenes, as though Roy didn’t know what was really important to her story--the naïveté of her main characters and their loss of innocence, or the long view reflection on postcolonial Indian society. 

I thought almost the same of Orlando; it seemed to ignore the reality of the main character’s long life and sex change which seemed so central and so starkly real in other adaptations and, I am given to understand (thanks to Bernie and Adrian), the source material. Orlando pretended to use high concept blocking, minimal cast, minimalist props, and third person narration to equally present the scope and reality in the details of the story even though it basically forgot that, on stage, these choices can limit the trancient qualities of a good actor’s performance--i.e. using third person narration takes the personality out of a character’s line--and thereby detriment the production.

But all that is, unfortunately, too past to dwell upon. And as a new year dawns, and I go off to the University of Minnesota in days, and hang around my old climbs of AP College English work for now, I find myself wanting to retread some of this ground. So I’ll use another access point because the trouble remains; artists don’t understand their art, and nowhere is it more clear than in the more pulp orders of novels and film. 

So I guess I’ll talk (to whoever’ll listen) about something that’s been on my mind in the same vein as those two earlier posts so long ago. It’s time for “Juices Truces: The Conclusion”. It’s time for something magical. I am going to talk about the Harry Potter film franchise, how David Yates ruined it, how Deathly Hallows is not a Harry Potter book even if it is necessary to the story, why magic is not magical, and why the wizarding world is not a different world. I’ll try not to get bogged down in themes and in-depth analysis of Harry Potter as ostensibly post-war literature or anything like that (even if it’s true). I’ve got my work cut out for me on this one, and I hope that I can “solve” the problems with Harry Potter to boot All in an effort to conclude a post I started a long time ago about writers (or their theatrical/cinematic counterparts) not grasping the intricacies of their stories.

A Skeleton Popped Out!

So yeah.. I'm not sure if this has a prompt attached to it, but I think its important to the novel, so I blog about it. Flipping back through God of Small Things, I think that ugly, macabre things really define the novel, both through Big Things and Small Things. Sophie Mol and Velutha's deaths are  two ugly secrets that the family refuses to allow in the open. The forbidden nature of these things forces them through the world of Small things. Relatedly, sex has a pretty grotesque beat to it as well . Estha's rape, the violence that follows Ammu and Velthua from the river bank, the incest is acted out of "hideous grief.  This book has a closet full of skeletons, drowned ones, raped ones, spiteful ones, and ones left to die in a prison cell. Big closet. 

 

Ruined Life=Children

Ammu and her children live an extremely tough life.  First of all, Ammu has separated from her abusive husband, and she raises Estha and Rahel with no help from Baby Kochamma who is decieving and manipulative in the end and ruins the family.  Yet Ammu stays strong.  She even goes against all norms of society and begins sexual relations with an untouchable.  Not only this, but Ammu believes that her children ruined her life. 

I find this topic of Ammu and the conflict between her children to be an extremely compelling argument.  That is why I want to write my paper on the relationship between Ammu and her children to further explore this dissonance.  I also find it interesting that Ammu (who is of a lower class because she is a woman) is involved with someone of an even lower class(Velutha). Ammu blames her children for destroying her social status and life but really what is killing her status is the sneaking around she is doing with a man who is not to be touched.

Hidden Love

The passage I would like to discuss begins in the middle of page 202 ("Her children, an insane whisper whispered to him...") and ends on 204 ("Madness slunk through a chink in History..."). This is referring to when Estha and Rahel are at Velutha's house while Rahel is supposed to be taking a nap. Roy has barely talked about the relationship between Ammu and Velutha, but this passage seems to be an indicator of what it is like.

When Velutha looks at the twins and angrily thinks "Her eyes, her mouth. Her teeth.", I feel like he is almost being teased by their similar looks to Ammu. He cannot openly express his feelings due to their different social class, and interaction with the twins only emphasizes that for him.

Toward the end of the passage, Velutha "tried to hate her...he couldn't." I think the fact that their love is hidden makes him want to dislike her because hiding it is worse than not having a relationship at all, but he just can't seem to.

This definitely relates to the third prompt we talked about an alienated character, but does anyone have any insight to this? How can this be more specifically tied to the prompt?

Sophie Mol Conforming?

So for the first prompt Mr. Heidkamp gave us, the one about conformity, I am thinking about doing it about Chacko.  He is forced to conform to the indian society even though he obviously feels more comfortable in an English society.  He meets his wife there and they got along there.  He was a lot happier and he refuses to let go of his wife (ex-wife, Chacko!) and his child who are both English.

One other person I was considering doing for this prompt is Sophie Mol.  But the thing is with Sophie Mol it is kind of backward.  She is a girl who despite her Indian roots from her father conformed to an English Society.  But then she is taken out of her English society and forced into this Indian society that has been absent all her life.  She is forced to try and conform and she does so by trying to bond with her cousins.  However when she does this it ends up killing her.

So I don't really know if that goes along with the same prompt or if I should try and write my own?  Tell me what you guys think!

Little Ammu

At the beginning of chapter 7, Wisdom Exercise Notebooks, Rahel and Estha are in Pappachi's study looking at books and old notebooks they used. It doesn't say exactly why they were looking through their old things, but I think that people look through old books, notebooks, etc when they feel lonely or want to feel more of a sense of family and comfort. It is always funny to look at your old writing when you are older, and when I read this passage it reminded me of my sister and me because we like to read our old writing and look through our old work. While it may have not had the same meaning as it did for Rahel and Estha when they were reading Little Ammu, it's funny that a lot of people do that to look back on good memories or to remember specific people and times. I think it was important to include this part because reading his old writing about Ammu triggered feelings toward Ammu when she was sick. I think Roy successfully used the old writing and books as a trigger to an old memory in order to better explain Ammu's importance in Rahel and Estha's lives. 

Juices Deuxes or Part Two of My Last Post

So basically it's been another long day, but I guess my idea of "gettin' down on Friday" includes blogging. It will be a while before anyone reads this. Whatever. See maybe it’s a problem with the world today, people don’t get what I’m getting at. Or maybe I don’t get what I’m getting at. So in act two I’ll reestablish the main problems here and try to deal with them in a way that I think is effective. 

On that note, let’s take a minute and learn some words; criticism versus critique. See the two are different although some people use them interchangeably, but not my main man Immanuel Kant. See Kant wrote some books, The Critique of Pure Reason was one, and he wasn’t making judgements about people reasoning; Kant was considering what reason is. Kant even wrote about aesthetics which is something I’m critiquing in the literature we’re encountering in AP College English. A critique is “a specific critical commentary or review” criticism is based on value judgements. So I am doing a bit of both because I find much in The God of Small Things ineffective, but that’s because I don’t see it fitting within the realm of effective literature I’m reviewing. And as with morality, aesthetics can be relative, that won’t change the fact that there are clear problems with what’s been laid down in some of these works we’ve gone through. Relativity also won’t change that we can get away with maverick uses of language without pretension or loss of meaning.

Additionally I think I’ve said that my real problem with Beloved was it’s superficiality. I was pontificating, now I’m reflecting, reasoning, reviewing, critiquing. I think it’s the case that Morrison knows what she’s doing when she writes; she may know to well was my point. Similarly, Roy is clearly not any of the authors I mentioned previously—authors I might add who each have their own distinctive style that seems to fit into time tested and respected literature—I don’t see her in that pantheon anytime soon based on this book (that is to say her only book). I don’t see her in that pantheon ever. Unless she pulls off some sort of miracle later (and I have my doubts) she’s just another lady with a book to her name. Screw the Booker Prize.

The critique I’m basing my obviously opinionated opinions off of is that there is a necessary commitment to tone and consistency that an author makes in a work that facilitates the ability of a reader to probe it. This is kind of a thesis, I argued it with the books last night. But I’m taking it as fact here; you’re in part deux now.

The God of Small Things does a lot of things wrong along the lines of consistency and efficacy of it’s language. It piles all the things it tries to do—point of view, changes in time, repetition of themes and phrases, repetition of events even, et cetera—higher to the extent that, if there is something to it all, it’s a needle in a haystack gasping for breath (a mixed metaphor Roy just might use). But some of the more damning aspects of the book are the things it’s done right (I’m on the look out for those too now). Here’s one I kind of like; “She put her rosary back into her blouse where she kept it with her melons” (Roy, 77). See that tells us about the character—her spirituality, her appearance maybe—and it does effectively reflect the point of view of someone brought up in the Syrian Christian system who is also young and snarky. Thumbs up to Roy on this passage. It’s more that she’s already messed up the consistency and structural nature of her story that makes this line a pain in the ass still. Here’s another one I like; “Being interrupted by Phil Donahue was of course entirely different from being interrupted by a subway rumble. It was a pleasure. An honor” (85). This line is reasonably true and shows some genuine perception on the part of the person who wrote it; a subway may have more than the coming and going of people and trains—it rumbles. Here Roy’s narration is good, almost poetic. Like Emily Dickinson or Cormack McCarthy, she’s picking up on something the lay person doesn’t realize immediately.

I think that Virginia Woolf probably picked up on things that lay people don’t realize. Perhaps especially that people didn’t realize at the time she was writing. Now I haven’t read Orlando: A Biography but I feel like I know what’s going on there; why it would be considered a powerful work. I suspect that the power of Orlando is similar to the movie (though I can’t really say for sure) and that power is in the fact that the story knows what it’s doing and sticks to it’s guns. Further, like I said about Beloved earlier, Orlando complicates itself with things like time and gender. But Orlando depends upon a serious and considered appraisal of what it takes aim at; perhaps (though not necessarily) the change and voracity of gender relations. This appraisal as opposed to a flippant look at the absurdities of such long life and unlikely change disguised with supposedly inventive writing which depends on third person narration. See deep down the play Orlando knows that it’s dealing with this tricky stuff, but it doesn’t deal with it because it repeatedly takes the audience out of that stuff.

A play can be weird. Anything can be weird, but maybe it shouldn’t be weird for weirdness’s sake. Which brings me back to my critique; the strength of a work can won or lost in it’s commitment to something concrete. If I want to relate a work to some, say perhaps, greater human truth, or critical assertion, that work had better have the ability to fit into a box like that. Okay some works defy classification. For some works, defiance is the point. But get with the program, there’s a way to articulate an idea effectively. 

Here’s sort of a final going over, though that’s not to say that this is the last word I’ll have on the subject. Look at in-class discussion though, Beloved proved fruitful though not liked while The God of Small Things hasn’t really been fruitful at all. If there was something really to be said conclusively about The God of Small Things someone would have said it, so maybe it’s way down there still. Yet the construction of the language, the literature of the book suggests otherwise; the concreteness of the book (perhaps that singular meaning I once said criticism of art invites) is debilitated by the fickleness the likes of Roy brought to her book or the actors and playwright at the Court Theater brought to Orlando.

Again I’ve written for more than enough time tonight, but there may be more to say. Although I’ve articulated the problems in these works a hundred times it seems, it may be worthwhile to bang out some solutions. It’s not that there isn’t the capacity for passable work here, it’s just that these basics (what a critique of literary language would reveal) have not been covered.

That still may not be all.

Class

Throughout Arundhati Roy's novel The God of Small Things, Roy discusses class. Mammachi hires Velutha as a carpenter, which is typically a Touchables job, even though Velutha is an untouchable. To appease the other employees Mammachi pays Velutha less then the Touchables (74). Although Velutha's job does not fit someone of his class, people try to change things so he seems more like a Untounchable. Kochu Maria also has a job that is not fit for her class. She wears earrings to make sure that people know that she is a Touchable.

The Turning Point

"Slowly, over the years, Estha withdrew from the world. He grew accustomed to the uneasy octopus that lived inside him and squirted its inky tranquilizer on his past. Gradually the reason for his silence was hidden away, entombed somewhere deep in the soothing folds of the fact of it" (13).

So i was thinking about what could have caused Estha to stop talking and I'm thinking it was his experience with the Orangedrink Lemondrink man.  From the quote above we know that it was in fact a single reason/event in his past that caused him to "withdraw from the world". Right before the incidence with the Orangedrink Lemondrink man Estha was out in the lobby of the theater singing, which could be Roy's way of showing us how Estha used to be before the incident. Estha also refuses to go to college and instead begins doing housework like cleaning and cooking and doing the laundry. Since housework is stereotypically woman's work, i think this also could have been Roy's way of showing how the incident with the Orangedrink Lemondrink man kind of robbed Estha of his "manhood", and thus kind of emotionally ruined him.

No Type of Order

At first Bernie and Roy both convinced me that after the first chapter, the book goes in order.  And there is a large possibility that I am completely wrong, but I dont see any type of order! I mean yes there is a consistent theme of going from sophie mol's arrival and to death but in between these two points, there is a lot of jumping around between stories and characters at different times.

For example, first we read about Ammu's cremation, then it jumps back again to the point where she first felt alive again after her divorce when she is attracted to Velutha.  The story does not go in order as I had expected and I do not really see the chronology very easily.  I think overall this book is just really frusturating me beacause it is, for some odd reason, difficult to really get into and enjoy.  I know Bernie said this book is one we won't be able to put down and besides the fact that I cant put it down because I am constantly trying to catch up, even after rereading it, I am still struggling with it.

What You Do to Get the Creative Juices Creating

So maybe I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore, maybe I’m a contrarian who’s had a long day, I may even be barking up the wrong tree. But I don’t think so. My last posts have been all new frustration with the content of the works we’ve been experiencing, but I think it’s warranted because, regardless of the relative merits people assume don’t exist in art (spoiler: there are relative merits in art), I sense that the last two books we have in the class and the play don’t really achieve the level of artistic merit I’d demand from a class which seeks to probe and explain literature (or maybe any interrogation of a subject). See like it or not, genera defiance or not, there is something to be said for establishing and maintaining consistent tone and structure in a work—assert creativity. Frankly between Beloved, The God of Small Things, and Orlando, Beloved really works best even if seemingly superficially.

Beloved seems to have a stated purpose; consider the endurance present in, and generational history of American slavery in hindsight. This is nice, it can be expanded upon when we add things like three generations of characters, motifs such as feet, colors, movement through history, or supernatural forces. Nevertheless, we have a really nice ground to build from and Morrison does that right. She knows what’s up and convolutes it on top, an author doesn’t need to say “this is the base of my novel” (Heart of Darkness anyone) but the sensed presence of such a concrete object is something the reader might (almost certainly does in critical reading) read for. Do I uncover the Meaning of everything I encounter, probably not but I like the sense it’s there, kind of like money or representational government if you catch my drift. A reader can have faith in a book like Beloved because they don’t think that it will let them down in that it means to mean.

The God of Small Things may mean to mean as well, but I don’t think that a reader should have faith in this books ability to provide one with what one wants. Beloved may have been superficial, but it’s pledge seemed honest; Morrison’s language was not particularly abstract but she didn’t neglect to create over pages transitions and gradients between the past and present and people that were vital to the story. It’s what Morrison wanted, a narrative that successfully replied to the relatively unstated purpose. Interestingly enough, The God of Small Things may be trying at some of the very same meanings and constructions of Beloved but doesn’t really follow through; The God of Small Things does not allow itself to say equally “124 was spiteful” and “but by 1873...” (Morrison, 5). Roy probably shouldn’t have said “hey it might suck because writing this will not work” (you have to look really closely on pages 32 to 34) when she meant to say that the hardships of life in all of Indian history can be ambiguous even to a unit as close together as twins (maybe).

There is such a thing as point of view. I’m writing from one right now in my chair. I get that. And with point of view one might come across “a word with crinkled, happy edges” as I cited earlier, but that wouldn’t make it true (Roy, 53). See we can have point of view about going to Oxford—“you don’t go to Oxford. You read at Oxford.... After reading at Oxford you come down”—but that’s not a cause to really break up the page the Roy does (55). That’s something Morrison knows. And Faulkner. And Dickens. And Conrad. And many more good writers; McCarthy, Fitzgerald, Hawthorn, Shakespeare, Virgil, Austin, even various sisters Brontë didn’t mess that up. Roy consistently fails to make sense of this aspect of her novel. She contradicts the point of view of a child by having sentences that don’t support one subjective state; “Rahel saw that Ammu had a film of perspiration on her forehead and upper lip, and that her eyes had become hard, like marbles” (69). What’s going on here Roy, does Rahel reflect on the various meanings of the word “film” and then need to also describe a look which might be stern with an association to spherical glass playthings? That doesn’t seem to follow. Maybe this would be a good time to use italics to draw a distinction (after all Ms. Roy, you seem to really like italics; you have no problem just shooting them left and right like marbles). But maybe this sentence could be serviced even better by just finding consistent tone; it’s what you do to get the creative juices flowing.

All this exacerbated thinking is not to say that a writer can’t push the boundaries of the printed word. In fact it may be the only thing I really like about the Emily Dickinson poetry we’ve read that she seems to have no ails dropping in some dashes and line breaks. I relish the idea that there may be more to those literal lines than meets the eye. Let’s read those lines. Similarly Cormack McCarthy, an author that has come repeatedly to mind these last few books, has his own style of writing that isn’t conventional but really does seem to describe the fluidity of say a conversation. McCarthy is also a playwright so he probably has a better sense of how a conversation flows or needs to flow to begin with than one who “was trained as an architect.” At any rate, these are writers who are pushing the boundaries, know why, and know how.

Maybe that’s not fair to Arundhati Roy; not everyone is the next Faulkner or Dickens. I know that. But I’m not the one who made that comparison to begin with, I’ll try to be a one who decides if that’s worth saying. It’s not.

At this point I’ve been writing for over an hour and I’m really happy with what I have. I wanted to discuss Orlando because that production suffered from a lot of the same difficulties as The God of Small Things and deserves the same treatment (whatever that means). I’ll leave you with this. Get some sleep. I’m not going to be good for the quiz, but we’ll see how tomorrow goes anyways.

That is not all.

 

One Loved A Little Less

One thing I find interesting in this book is how everything is tied together in Rahel’s mind. When she is rude to Ammu after the sound of music and Ammu tells her that now she loves her less, Rahel connects this to Sophie Mol. She is happy when Sophie Mol tells Chacko that she does not love him as much as she loves Joe. In Rahel’s mind this means that Chacko has more room for love for Rahel and Estha. It’s interesting how Rahel connects the event that took place before Sophie Mol came and connects it with her presence and place in the family.

Rahel presents a comparison of herself and Sophie Mol. The comparison is very simplistic despite the dramatic cultural differences. “Little Girls Playing. Sweet. One beach-colored. One brown. One Loved. One Loved a Little Less” (177). It seems to me that Rahel purposely leaves out all of the other differences because these are the things that matter to her. The color of skin has come up elsewhere in the book and seems to be important. The fact the Rahel believes she is now loved a little less is extremely important to the way she feels about herself and those around her. It’s amazing how powerful one interaction can be in a person’s life.

 

A Heart of Darkness and a Mothers Love

Something I have found interesting throughout the novel so far is the references to other books that we have read. I was at first surprised to see a reference to Heart of Darkness, "Ayemenem's own Kurtz. Ayemenem his private Heart of Darkness". Until that point, I would not have expected these books to really have a connection. However, since then there have been many of these references. 

Another connection that I thought was really interesting was one to Beloved. Although it was not as direct as the ones from Heart of Darkness, it still stuck out to me. "Ammu loved her children (of course), but their wide-eyed vulnerability and their willingness to love people who didn't really love them exasperated her and sometime made her want to hurt them-- just as an education, a protection." I thought this passage really illustrated a mother/child relationship. Just like Sethe, Ammu wants to do all she can to protect her children. Although the actions they are willing to take are very different, most likely because of the different situations, it still shows how a mothers love for her children can be extreme. 

A Child's Perspective

 

One of the most amazing things that Roy accomplishes is capturing a child's point of view. In her creation of Rahel, Estha, and Sophie Mol, and their interactions with the world, she transports the reader back to their own childhood when you would play in empty boxes or hide behind a dirty curtain if only for a little attention.

Most of the novel is from Rahel's point of view - Rahel looking back at her life after returning to her hometown 30years later. However, what intrigues me the most is Estha. The only major scene from Estha's perspective is his encounter with the Orangedrink Lemondrink man. Besides that, the reader learns more about Estha from other people's perspectives.

We know all the quirky things about Estha. He saves receipts (156), keeps to himself, walks in the rain, and slowly stopped talking. All the other characters seem to dismiss Estha or view him as an annoyance or weirdo. I think we can attribute some of this to the fact that Estha and Rahel are "we," "us," "they," or "them." The two-egg twins were never viewed as single people. Rahel appears to be the dominant twin and commands attention, while Estha sits in the back and observes. The few times there is a short passage dedicated to Estha, he is always afraid. At the beginning of chapter 10, Estha has two thoughts that "anything can happen to Anyone" and "It's best to be prepared" (186). Estha is obviously a troubled child, and now man. I hope that Roy will explain his muteness and the mystery that surrounds him.

njan ninne snehikkunnu (I love you)

All the "love" in this story is very complicated.  First of all there is Margaret and Chacko.  Chacko still loves Margaret and calls her his wife even though they are divorced.  And although Margaret does not feel the same way she does not correct Chacko when he calls her his wife.  Then there is Baby Kochamma and this priest.  He has no interest in her and never gave her a second look.  But she decided to become a nun (something she hated doing) to be close to him. 

Then there is family love.  Ammu loves Rahel and Estha a lot.  She even says she loves them double because they don't have a dad.  But when Rahel gets in trouble Ammu says every time Rahel does something bad, she loves her a little less.  That seemed really harsh to me to tell your daughter you love her less if she does something to upset you.  Then there is Chacko and Sophie Mol.  Chacko loves Sophie Mol so much, even though he barely knows her.

Last but not least there is love between siblings/cousins.  Rahel and Estha have this bond so powerful that they can tell what each other is feeling.  But then there is Sophie Mol who the twins love because they have to.  I like how this book does not have the conventional mom, dad, kids relationship.  There is nothing about the love in this book that is simple and I'm excited to read more about it.

It's Looking Bleak...

From what i have read so far in GOST, it seems to be a really bleak, kind of dark, twisted book. I feel like all the major events that have happened so far have have either been kind of depressing, scary or just plain wierd. Sophie Mol's funeral for example was kind of scary and dark, how Rahel thought Sophie was being buried alive and could hear her screaming. Then there is Ammu's abusive relationship, Rahel's failed marriage, Estha becoming mute, and Baby Kochamma's life of T.V. watching, which are all just miserable. And there is Estha getting molested by the Orangedrink Lemondrink man, and Rahel watching Estha undress, which are both just really strange and kind of twisted scenes that im not sure i see a purpose for yet. This family's life just seems really bleak, and I'm hoping the plot will take a turn and something good will finally happen to them in future chapters.

Like Beloved

So far, God of Small Things seems to be quite similar to Beloved.  In both books, the authors try to expose some fault with their country.  In Beloved, Toni Morrison tries to show readers the horrors of slavery in the United States.  In God of Small Things, Roy reveals the negative aspects of the caste system in India.  Furthermore, both authors use realistic settings and characters.  There are no idealised characters with great morals or abilities in either story.  In other words, every character in the two books have flaws, which makes them seem more real.  Sethe may seem like a nice run away slave trying to get on with her life for Denver, but she actually killed her own child and have to live with the guilt.  Estha develops communication problems while away from Ayemenem and also has a strange relationship with Rahel.  There also seems to be some  supernatural elements in both books.  In Beloved, Sethe and Denver live in a haunted house and have to deal with Beloved, a child that walked out of the river.  In God of Small Things, the book mentions that Estha and Rahel have a mental connection at birth, that they were Siamese twins of the mind rather than of the body.  For me, I do not really like the supernatural aspects in these books because it makes them seem less real and an attempt from the author to put too much meaning or symbolism in something.  Basically, both books raise concerns over a social institution and relay the messages of the author through a realistic family, other than the supernatural stuff.

Red=Negative Foreshadow

When red is used to describe objects, it seems froeshadows a negative experience. For example, the Abhilash talkies are describe with red. Roy explalins, "red steps with old red carpet. Red staircase with red spiot stains in the red corner" (93). After this description is given, something negative happens. Estha has a bad experience wtih the Orangedrink Lemonadedrink Man. Also, red is used to describe the landscape around Rahel right before she sees Velutha.

Does anyone else see this?    

Ok...?

At the end of chapter 3 is the scene where Estha is undressing as Rahel  watches. This scene confused me because...they're brother and sister. As he undresses to do his laundry, it's not just one or the other, they both seem to be impartial to the others eyes. As Rahel basically checks Estha out, it seems to get weird, are the supposed to be getting intimate, or is this not what I think it is? Finally, they have an intimate interaction to top it all off. Rahel wipes a (raindrop?) off of Estha's ear. While he pretends not to notice, he really seems to. Is this interaction just the connection that the two have, due to the fact that their twins, or is it more than that. Possible incest to come in the novel? I hope, because that would really be a thick plot twist.

Sophie Mol's Funeral

In class we were asked to pick out passages that we thought were significant or that were confusing. I picked out the section that was Sophie Mol's funeral. I think that it is significant that the novel opened with this as the first main event with the characters. Sophie Mol is obviously an important character and I think it will become more obvious how as we read more.

I also found this section confusing. I didn't understand what it was supposed to mean when Rahel noticed that Sophie was "awake for her funeral" and when she showed Rahel two things. Sophie Mol showed Rahel the "newly painted high dome of the yellow church that Rahel hadn't ever looked at from the inside" (7). The second was "the bat baby" (8). I didn't understand the significance of these two things and what they mean in Rahel's life. Obviously Sophie Mol is very important to Rahel and teaches her a lot in her life.

Welcome Home, Our Sophie Mol

The theme of life as a performance is especially prevelant when Rahel and Estha talk about Sophie Mol. Everyone is excited for Sophie Mol and Margaret Kochamma arrival. Chacko wants to see his daughter and wife (ex-wife!) again, and Baby Kochamma and Mammachi believe Sophie Mol is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The end of chapter 7 sets up chapter 8 as a play. Everyone has a part to play.

It was interesting how the play was centered around Sophie Mol. From the moment she steps into the airport, everyone's focus is on her. It is obvious that Rahel and Estha feel neglected. Rahel describes her role as the landscape, a flower, tree, a face in the crowd, a townsperson (164). She later escapes the performance and watches offstage with Velutha (166). Rahel constantly refers to the scene with Sophie Mol's arrival and her cake as the Play.

Each characters' part in the Play also is a symbol for a larger motif. The fact that Velutha is never involved in the Play and merely watches offstage with Rahel shows that he is still an outsider. While Ammu and Rahel can go offstage and onstage, Velutha is restricted. The caste system still negatively affects his life. Rahel, on the otherhand, is glad to have an outlet or safehaven. She does not want to be apart of the Official Greeting (166) for multiple reasons. Above all, she is jealous of Sophie Mol. In chapter 8, Rahel constantly refers to how she is loved less (177), and is a "littledemon" (170). This chapter is full of motifs including class, purity, and love/neglect. There is so much going on. It is intersting how all of these blossom from the simple theme of life as a performance.

Red

The color red is used a lot in Arundhati Roy's novel The God of Small Things. Many of the things associated with the Naxalite's are red. Roy describes "red flag...red sky, hot red kites" (76). Rahel notices the red shortly before she notices Velutha in the crowd. TheAbhilash talkies are also described with red. Roy describes "red steps with the old red carpet. Red staircase with red spit stains in the red corner" (93). The family notices the red in the talkies before Estha has an unpleasant experience with the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man. The color red warns about something bad happening in the future.

The "Living" Dead

In Chapter One, Estha notices two things at Sophie Mol's funeral, the pivotal moment in the novel. She notices that "Sophie Mol was awake for her funeral... lying in a coffin looking up" (Roy 7). I realize that this means that Sophie Mol's eyes were open during her funeral. Isn't it customary for the deceased's eyes to be shut during his or her funeral? Why were Sophie Mol's eyes open? This seems to be a foreshadow for the cause of Sophie Mol's death. When the eyes are shut during a funeral, it is meant to symbolize eternal peace. Maybe Sophie Mol died in a way that was not natural? 

Maybe I am looking too far into this moment, but it just seems weird that a person's eyes would be open during their funeral (unless they are alive of course!) Any suggestions?

I Never Thought I Would See The Day

As I read the first few chapters of the God of Small Things i was lost.  First of all I dont understand how this book follows any kind of order and im still a little confused on how everyone is related.  So although it makes me seem like a loser, i have promised myself that even though i would rather be reading the hunger games over spring break, i will reread the first 117 pages of the most confusing book (yes more confusing than Beloved).  I hope it helps me to gain some sort of understanding because right now i am lost in the sea of twin telepathy and it is kinda freaking me out.

Protest

In chapter two, I made an interesting connection. On the way to the movie theater the characters encounter a communist march going on in the street. They refuse to make eye contact with the protestors and have a general aversion towards the movement. When a protestor asked Rahel a question, Baby Kochamma said "Don't answer!...Look down! Just look down!" (76)

I found it ironic that, despite their dislike of the protest, the family was on their way to see a movie based on protest, The Sound of Music. For those of you who have not seen this movie, the main conflict is that Nazi Germany has taken over Austria. The von Trapp family, comprised of seven children and their governess Maria, is forced to make a life changing decision when the Nazis recruit their father to assume a position in the German Navy. In order to escape the family's fate, the von Trapp family escapes into the mountains and refuses the Nazi request.

This is an extreme case of rebellion which is why I find it interesting that Roy would pair the communist scene with this movie. 

Crazy Connections

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that Estha and Rahel's connection to each other is a little strange...in a large part of Chapter 1 we are told of how they "share" memories as if they were always present at the same events even if they weren't.  I also think that it is weird that they can "feel" each other now that they are both back in Ayemmemen.  

My question is...is there connection simply a twin telepathy thing or is there a deeper meaning? Why are they connected?  What is the author's purpose when emphasizing their connection?  Personally, I believe that while there is some twin telepathy going on, I think that their connection definitely goes way deeper than simply feeling each other's presence or knowing the other's experience.

At this point I do not think we have been given enough information as to properly deduce the meaning of their connection.  I think that the author is foreshadowing a story that will soon be told, but I am not really all that sure..I just think that they have a curious connection and it makes me sort of wish I had a twin... 

The Octopus

One passage that jumped out when I read it was the description of Estha’s silence. The process of him becoming silent is represented as an octopus taking away his words. I found this description to be interesting because it seems to be a way that a child would describe this process. It is described, “It sent its stealthy, suckered tentacles inching along the insides of his skull, hovering the knolls and dells of his memory” (13).The octopus represents the slow gradual process Estha undergoes. It is cool the way the author uses a child’s point of view without losing any of the imagery and language that brings the passage to life. This happens throughout the first chapter in other places but I found this to be the most interesting passage.

 

I Am So Confused!

Ok, Bernie whats up with assigning God of Small Things last?  You know we all have senioritus by now and assigning a really complicated book with not a lot of discussion to go along with it is not helping!  Maybe its just me, but I am more confused on this than I ever was in Beloved.  At least we started getting a story line by the end of chapter one in Beloved, but right now I am in chapter 3 of God of Small things and I still see no set story line.  Which leads me to my next point.  You said that God of Small Things is the first book to go in chronological order.  This book does not go in chronological order at all!  One minute I'm reading about Rahel and Esta going to pick up Sophie Mol from the airport, and the next I'm reading about Baby Kochamma's time as a nun.  And yeah I can handle the flashbacks, but so far there have been so many that I don't even know when this story is actually taking place!  Also what is up with Roy capitalizing random words?  I have seen some posts about it and people are saying that it is because those words are important and Roy wants them to stand out.  Why are they important?  They just seem like random phrases to me!

So I don't know if it is just me, but I am so confused that I don't even know how to just blog on a specific section.  Maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention, but what do you guys think?  Are people as confused as I am?  And I am unfortunatly not going to be here on friday the one day we actually are going to discuss this book.  I guess I am just going to have to keep on reading in confusion.  Good luck everyone!

Estha and Rahel

After reading chapter one of The God of Small Things I have come to find the connection and differences between Estha and Rahel. Estha went through childhood by slowly phasing out talking and eventually became a mute. Rahel, on the other hand was constantly getting expelled from school because she was acting out. 

While the contrasting twin-sibling thing does not bother me that much (because I feel as if the quintessential twin story deals with contrasting characters), it is the idea that Rahel and Estha identify as a "we". On page 5 Roy writes "Anyway, now she thinks of Estha and Rahel as Them, because separately, the two of them are no longer what They were or ever thought They'd be". It just seems really interesting that although they are two completely different people, who grew up in different situations and a product of a broken family, they feel so connected. Or is this feeling of connection that Rahel has a fabricated feeling that she wishes to have with her distant, estranged brother?

I am interested to see where this relationship unfolds, and alhtough the chapters change to a time that is significantly earlier than Chapter One, I kind of wish the story continued in this time frame.