Jason-Roy-3/30

Within the Family, Western influences seem to have near equal footing within their perception of the world. Chacko’s time spent at Oxford seems to be an underlying reason for the existence of his “Reading Aloud Voice,” what seems to be a kind of overly accentuated intellectuality and need to present himself as above everything and everyone around him. There seems to be a similarity between this type of behavior and the way the children, Estha and Rahel, are forced to engage in pronouncing English words “properly” with the correct “Prer NUN sea ayshun.”

A strain of Chacko’s Westernness, forced on them by Baby Kochamma, seems to be acting as a constraint or restraint on the children’s means of interacting with language with are ultimately things outside of themselves. It seems to be a kind of tool for identity formation. Ammu does a similar thing when she takes Rahel aside after she’s wrapped herself up in a dirty curtain to avoid Sophie Mol and Margaret Kochamma at the airport.

She (Ammu) “informs” Rahel what is “DIRTY” and what is “CLEAN.” It seems behind this distinction that Ammu demands Rahel understand is a struggle of Rahel’s innate personality versus Sophie Mol’s foreign worldly superiority (that everyone of the adults in the family places on her). In other words, there’s a conflict between Indianness and Englishness or Darkness vs. Lightness, good and evil. Still, Rahel and Estha already have many parts of their identity determined according to Western sensibilities. Estha’s fascination with Elvis and Rahel’s (and Estha’s) love for Velutha who seems to embody this interrelatedness of Eastern and Western as an untouchable who seems to have the power to rise above his circumstances.

karol- roy - 3/30

6. The story, like Rushdie's book, makes liberal use of foreshadowing. There is a suggestion of a motive for Rahel and Estha's involvement in Sophie Mol's death. Comment on this suggestion and its possible meaning or reason for inclusion.

"The backs of Rahel’s legs went wet and sweaty. Her skin slipped on the foamleather upholstery of the car seat. She and Estha knew about millstones. In Mutiny on the Bounty, when people died at sea, they were wrapped in white sheets and thrown overboard with millstones around their necks so that the corpses wouldn’t float. Estha wasn’t sure how they decided how many millstones to take with them before they set off on their voyage." (80)

The audience definitely knows Sophie is going to die well in advance of the event. After the capsizing of the boat the anticlimactic reaction is definitely a clue; paired with what Sophie says to them the night before pairs motive with opportunity. The term accidentally on purpose comes to mind. The mutiny on the Bounty reference evokes a colonial/imperial thematic content synonymous with their relationship.

Will - Roy - 3/30

If you remember the first reading from class, "Intro to the Indo-English Novel," a modernist ideology is supposedly morally untenable for a post-colonial writer.  Modernism represents a break with history and emphasizes solitariness and alienation as the human condition.  If that is true, then family and community have no meaning, which would not sit well with, say, Rushdie.  It is also an apolitical stance that will never help "liberate" people living in places with colonial history.  So, according to the writer of that essay, critical realism is the correct aesthetic for post-colonial writers because it shows the conflict between the individual and the social world.  But can we really say that Roy is morally wrong in using a modernist style?  Can't a modernist style be liberating?


If modernist heroes are alienated loners, Rahel and Estha seem to be perfect examples.  Estha, mute, sits out in the rain looking at the river, while Rahel is incapable of real human interaction (see her failed marriage, her interaction with Comrade Pillai on p. 122).  Another aspect of modernism which may have influenced Roy is the use of every-day, mundane subject matter for art, for example in the poetry of W.C. Williams.  Roy's novel is made up of ordinary, "small" moments.  The terseness of her sentences owes something to Hemingway.

Eidia. Roy. 3/30

9. Ammu, the twin's mother, is in some ways a different type of female character from the ones we've seen. Expand on this idea.

"In the Plymouth, Ammu was sitting in the front, next to Chacko. She was twenty-seven years that year, and in the pit of her stomach she carried the cold knowledge that, for her, life had been lived. She had had one chance. She made a mistake. She married the wrong man." (Roy, The God of Small Things, pg. 38)

Ammu, in a sense is a non-conventional sort of woman. She definitely did not conform to the traditions of her family, disregarding cultural and religious constraints, she married a man of a different caste as well as a different religion. Despite coming from the same nationality, Ammu and her husband were culturally different; hence, their children - Estha and Rahel were referred to as "hybrids". Yes, her life had been lived, for she married the wrong, but still managed to undergo the complete course, in a traditional sense, womanhood: daughter, wife, mother. Another striking impression brought forth via Ammu courageous confrontation with her life situation is her ability to endure and undergo her fate. She divorces from her husband, and once again returns to her maternal home, knowing the cold frontier that it has become for her, yet still obstinate to survive amidst the scorn and negative scrutiny of her own character and her baba-less children. I think Ammu's biggest attribute is her ability to accept her situation, yet confront the odds, still pushing forward through the thick air of failure.

Jane- Roy- 3/29/11

"Even her walk changed from a safe mother-walk to another wilder sort of walk. She wore  flowers in her hair and carried magic secrets in her eyes" (Roy, 43).

This passage is striking because it illustrates just how uncharacteristic Ammu is compared to what we've seen of the mothers figures in what we have read thus far. In the last two short stories as well as in Midnights Children, as I mentioned in a previous post about Mistry, that women are often portrayed as coquettish and child-like while maintaining some sense of self-awareness that leads the reader to think they know more than their husbands give them credit for. Ammu is a largely unsympathetic woman, although some of her attitudes towards her children, though they may seem harsh, are unrelatable and human. It could be Roy's way of challenging our traditional expectations of mothers in that Ammu can set aside her motherly responsibilities and be more fulfilled being her own person in a "better, happier place" (Roy, 43).

Joseph-Roy-3/30

1. in class we discussed connections between Roy's style and modernism? Firstly, what makes it quasi-modernist? 


I first wanted to talk about the issue of time and modernism in this work. One clear example is the twins habit of reading backwards and their love for palindromes( word, phrase, number or other sequence of units that can be read the same way in either direction). Writing in a palindrome form would be an example of "constrained writing", which is a favorite of modernists(I'm thinking of Nabokov using acrostics in 'The Vane sisters', or Walter Abish's Alliterative Alphabetical Africa). In 'The Vane Sisters', such a technique is used to go backwards in time(or at least retrieve something that was once lost) as, through deciphering the acrostics, the reader discovers that the deceased Vane sisters are controlling the narrator from the grave.  The twins in 'God of Small Things' also seek to turn back the clock. Emilienne Baneth-Nouailheta comments: "reading a word or a phrase both ways allegorizes the universal desire for the reversibility of action. In this sense, language is the children's own field of power in which they can bring forth their fantasies--and for that reason, characters like Miss Mitten or Baby seek to confiscate them."


I also wanted to consider a point made by Cecile Oumhani, who observed 'God of Small Things' in a Bakthinian view("the Russian critic famous for his theory of the novel as a modern, hybrid literary form in which a multiplicity of voices coexist and intermix 'dialogically'). She posits that "the Ipe twins occupy a liminal zone in TGST, reminscent of the 'interrogatory, interstitial space between the act of representation(....) and the presence of community'. The structure of the novel as a whole could also be read as a continual intertwining of liminal viewpoints and marginal details." Just something to consider, and perhaps something more skilled than I can lend their thoughts to this critique.

Rachel, Roy - 3/29

4. Find examples of some of Roy's characteristic stylistic flourishes - capital letters, lists, quoted language - and discuss when they are used and what effect or meaning they have.


Here it goes!  Here's a chunky excerpt from page 108:




"The sticky neon night rushed past the taxi window.  It was hot inside the taxi, and quiet.  Baby Kochamma looked flushed and excited.  She loved not being the cause of ill-feeling.  Every time a pye-dog strayed onto the road, the driver made a sincere effort to kill it.
The moth on Rahel's heart spread its velvet wings, and the chill crept into her bones.
In the Hotel Sea Queen car park, the skyblue Plymouth gossiped with other, smaller cars.  Hslip Hslip Hsnooh-snah.  A big lady at a small ladies' party.  Tailfins aflutter."




Its this rhetorically-packed language that makes me appreciate Roy so much.  (As Robin pointed out...I can't really discuss her without sounding like a positive book review, haha.)


Some things that jump out at me right away:


1.) "the sticky neon night" = some alliteration, but how can night be sticky, or even neon?  Not sure what highbrow Greek term you'd use to describe this.


2.)  "Every time a pye-dog strayed onto the road, the driver made a sincere effort to kill it."  Did anyone else laugh at this line?  I thought it was funny, even though animal cruelty is totally not funny.  Didn't Freud do studies on that?  I think most jokes are supposed to be a way of tricking the superego into releasing the id, if only for a split second.  Whatever.  Freud was amazing, but in 2011, his theories are outdated.


3.)  Personification of the cars.  (And even using a neologism to describe how they talk!)  The brand name (Plymouth) and color of the car suggests the socioeconomic status of the people inside it.  Obviously, they are well off, and it shows, as their car is the fanciest in the lot - or, in Roy's metaphor, "at the party."  "Tailfins aflutter" almost implies that the vehicles are taking on the form of fish-like creatures...huh.  Not sure why that is, but it's interesting.


4.) Rahel's moth, I think, it the most beautiful image in The God of Small Things.  Although it is a delicate insect, it becomes a haunting motif that symbolizes failure.  (Her grandfather - I think it was the grandfather - tried to have the moth named after him, and failed.  This is Roy "setting her audience up" to comprehend the moth's meaning.)  Later, Ammu tells Rahel that when she is mean to people, they "love her a little less," which causes her pain.  After this scene, every time Rahel experiences failure - especially in her personal relationships - the white moth inside her appears, chilling everything it touches.  Personally, I would have put a white moth on front cover of this book.  Thematically, I think it is one of the most important motifs Roy offers.


Gotta love a wordsmith who knows what she's doing.

God of Small Things to p. 147

ideas for your posts - read them all: most questions can be used by more than one student, as they refer to a range of events: 1. in class we discussed connections between Roy's style and modernism? Firstly, what makes it quasi-modernist? 2. Secondly, how are modernist techniques to be understood differently in the post-colonial context? 3. As we see the past and the future in chapters 1-5, Ayemenem, the Kochammas' chidhood home, remains a constant, although it changes over time. Comment on this landmark as a symbol. 4. Find examples of some of Roy's characteristic stylistic flourishes - capital letters, lists, quoted language - and discuss when they are used and what effect or meaning they have. 5. The story contains many instances of interrelatedness between the characters living in Kerala, India, and European influences: Christianity, Christian figures like Father Mulligan, the former owner of the History House, the "Anglophile" family itself... Pick one or more instances of these relations to the colonizers and comment on it. Does it show a struggle for identity? A kind of endurance of Indian culture? Or the complicatedness of all these things? (Point to specific passages.) 6. The story, like Rushdie's book, makes liberal use of foreshadowing. There is a suggestion of a motive for Rahel and Estha's involvement in Sophie Mol's death. Comment on this suggestion and its possible meaning or reason for inclusion. 7. Forbidden love appears in many different forms in the book. Find some instances of this and comment on them. Be specific. 8. Also, hopeless love (Baby-Mulligan, Chacko-Margaret) appears repeatedly. Comment on instances. 9. Ammu, the twins' mother, is in some ways a different type of female character from the ones we've seen. Expand on this idea - try pp 42-43 for examples. 10. Discuss the arrival of Sophie Mol as a scene and as a disruptive influence on the family. 11. How is Communism presented? Unlike in other books we've read, it is a dominant political force in the beginning of the story. Is it seen as bad or just not perfect?

Anna- Roy-3/28

Roy is like a little rushdie to me. The only way to understand the story is to mind the details. But there is no shorttage of ashtonshing details, and because of this you can read a line like, "Rahel's new teeth were waiting inside her gums, like words in a pen." And not even remember to think how much you like it. This is very distractin for me, to read something this bright. I am also interested in the way Roy writes as if shes writing one long prose poem. She indents new paragraphs to say one liners like,
Not old.
Not young
But a viable die-able age.
She also capitalizes terms as object-things. Like Rahel opens the window to get a Breath Of Fresh Air. (and told to close it when she was done) I am very interested in her style. So instead of quoting a passage here I showed the aspects I liked. My favorite passage was the spitting woman on the nyc subway.

Will - Roy - 3/28

"Chacko told the twins that, though he hated to admit it, they were all Anglophones.  They were a family of Anglophones.  Pointed in the wrong direction, trapped outside their own history and unable to retrace their steps because their footprints had been swept away.  He explained to them that history was like an old house at night. With all the lamps lit.  And ancestors whispering inside."  (page 51)

All the works we've read so far have had a strong concern with history, the inheritance of the past, whether it be national or family history.  There's not a sense in these stories that anyone can get a "fresh start."  The United States being a rather young country, it is often said that Americans are not tied to history like people from other places.  If this is true (I'm not saying it is), how is it that Americans are supposed to relate to the writings of Roy, Rushdie, or Naipaul?  Not everyone in class regards themselves as American obviously, so this may be a silly question.  But are we missing something?  

This novel reminds me a bit of Faulkner, Absalom, Absalom or The Sound and the Fury.  These novels are formal achievements with temporal leaps that show characters who are never free of what happened in the past, even before they were born.  The above passage shows how Roy is obsessed with lineage, similar to Faulkner.  Roy's style is evocative, and in this passage she compares the family to Untouchables (who had to walk backwards, sweeping their own footprints away).  The difference between Faulkner and Roy is that Faulkner admired humans in spite of everything, and Roy seems to resent them.

Jason-Roy-3/28

            In God of Small Things it seems one person’s conception of things and the overall perception of those things are frequently depicted as being influenced by the ideas or traditions of some other person’s beliefs. Chacko seems particularly influenced by his time spent at Oxford. This comes through his “Reading Aloud Voice” and perhaps his fascination with Communism. Pappachi’s role as Imperial Entomologist fluctuated according to the British presence. The validity of his finding of a new moth species was subject to forces outside his control.

            On Page 79 there’s a passage in which Rahel notices a crushed dead frog in the road and wonders whether Ms. Mitten was also crushed in the same manner when she was hit by a milk truck. This prompts a flashback of sorts in which Vellya Paapen assures both the twins, Rahel and Estha, that there are no black cats in the world but only black cat-shaped holes in the Universe.

            “There were so many stains on the road. Squashed Miss Mitten-shaped stains in the Universe. Squashed frog-shaped stains in the Universe. Squashed crows that had tried to eat the squashed frog-shaped stains in the Universe. Squashed dogs that ate the squashed crow-shaped stains in the Universe. Feathers. Mangoes. Spit. All the way to Cochin.”

To me this passage illustrates an inherent hierarchy of beings and things within the world and an inherent hierarchy of viewing things within world. It seems objectively that a stain is a stain and a hole is a hole. Only through being told what a “Miss Mitten” is or what a frog is can you describe a particular stain as being like a frog. These perceptions, dictated by people and traditions outside oneself, make up the distance between here and there or in Rahel’s case where she sits at the railroad crossing in the backseat of the sky-blue Plymouth and the movie theater in Cochin.

Karol - Roy -03/28

"Over time he had acquired the ability to blend into the background of wherever he was—into bookshelves, gardens, curtains, doorways, streets—to appear inanimate, almost invisible to the untrained eye. It usually took strangers awhile to notice him even when they were in the same room with him. It took them even longer to notice that he never spoke. Some never noticed at all.

Estha occupied very little space in the world." (17)

The description of Estha's "noticeable quietening" and self confinement evoked via image of lungfish leads to a boxy paragraph that closes in upon the reader as a prison of insignificance where Estha prefects his ability to blend in "invisible to the untrained eye." The lungfish is significant because it alters its body composition in order to breath air when it environment drys out. If that boxy paragraph is a prison than paragraph/sentence following is a prison sentence. 

I have to say. This book so far is just the right amount of Avant-garde for me. The details are not overpowering and seemingly purposeful.

Rachel - Roy, 3/28

The God of Small Things is definitely a diction-driven book.  Sometimes it can be hard to decipher what, exactly, is going on in the plot; I'm sure some readers will have different interpretations of what happens than others.  In that way, it's kind of like the Old Testament...or maybe even poetry.  It's fast reading pace is certainly reminiscent of poetry.

This diction is particularly clear on page sixty-three:

     "Within minutes, the road was swamped by thousands of marching people.  Automobile islands in a river of people.  The air was red with flags, which dipped and lifted as the marchers ducked under the level-crossing gate and swept across the railway tracks in a red wave.

     The sound of a thousand voices spread over the frozen traffic like a Noise Umbrella.

     'Inquilah Zindabad!

     Thozhilali Ekta Zindabad!'  "

Some things I immediately notice are: "automobile islands" (assonance), "Noise Umbrella," "dipped and lifted" (assonance again), "red" (repeated, it's said twice), the visual you get from "swamped by thousands of marching people" and "red wave."  P.s. - PLEASE correct me if these literary devices are wrong...AP English has completely escaped me, and even with one of those fancy internet guides, I still feel awkward using fancy Greek words.  I don't want to walk around Lang sounding like a jackass.  You know.

Anyhow.

Roy is just incredible as a wordsmith.  I found it only took me two or three days to complete this book, since she's able to create such surreal images with her diction.  The literary devices themselves seem so simple, such as juxtaposing the words "noise" and "umbrella" and then capitalizing the first letter.  Easy, effective.  That's a trait I deeply admire in a writer.

Thumbs up for Roy.  :}

The god of small things - first post

In your post, pick a passage from the first reading and comment on it. To give you inspiration, consider this passage about Roy and the novel:

The author, when asked just what the god of small things is, simply stated that it is “the inversion of God,” a “not accepting of what we think of as adult boundaries.” Roy asserts that throughout the course of the narrative, “all sorts of boundaries are transgressed upon.” It is, according to Roy, small events and ordinary things “smashed and reconstituted, imbued with new meaning to become the bleached bones of the story.” Subsequently, it is these small events and ordinary things that form a pattern for her narrative. “A pattern,” says Roy, “of how in these small events and in these small lives the world intrudes.” She believes that because of these patterns, and what they imply, that people go virtually unprotected, “the world and the social machine intrudes into the smallest, deepest core of their being and changes their life.”

Anna- Lahiri-3/22

So I wrote a response for class, but I deleted it because I wanted to rephrase my thoughts. Here goes: I am fascinated by the fact that many people do not like Jhumpa Lahiri. This is because I was given a novel of hers once from a Hindu boyfriend I had. he seemed to like her alot. From what I had gathered from comments in class however, it sounded like the consensus was that Lahiri knows what a Western audience "expects" from her as a Indian novelist, and so she gives the reader what they want, food, male/female roles, eduction and career and other "exotic" details lathered with a heavily stereotypical wash. It makes sense to me why she would raise some eyebrows. perhaps she was making her stories too easily, sculpting them out of cheesy clay. So it was interesting for me to read "This Blessed House" and see if I cold form my own opinion. It was easy to. Her writing is plastic clean. The parts that stand out, are each a bright stereotype. As mentioned in class, you can "smell the curry." I even recognized details from the way the male character was behaving down to the way he picked up his wife's scattered shoes and perfectly rearranged them inside the bedroom, from the relationship I once had. I didn't think that this was a stereotype, I always thought he just liked to keep our shoes lined up, but it seems to me something fishy is certainly going on with what is pre-recognizable in Lahiri's stories. Like, they are so "fun" something must be wrong. In comparison to the other short story we read , "The collectors" by Rohinton Mistry, Lahiri's characters just are not as beautifully evoked. It is the difference of a ink stamp, and a pen drawing. Mistry remind me more of Rushdie.

Dan 3/22

Like most of the work that we have read this semester The Blessed House has very heavy religious undertone. But the ones seen in this short story are more haunting than those seen in Midnight’s Children. The story itself seems more western focusing on a Hindu couple in Connecticut, whose marital issues seem to be an issue within the marriage. As the first story that we have read that takes place in America it is appropriate that this story acts upon these issues of religion and marriage in a more western way. It is almost like a clash of cultures. Sanjeev and Twinkles relationship seems to be different from most that we have read of in the past stories. They have known each other for only for months and are already married, and unhappy. Sanjeev strives for happiness. And Sanjeev has a huge obsession with the Catholic religion, making these characters feel even more out of place.

Jason-Lahiri-3/23

This Blessed House presents two characters, Twinkle and Sanjeev, who seem to fit into the traditional versus modern archetypes found in South Asian lit. Within this theme might be an implied sense of “opposites attract.” Though Sanjeev’s affection for Twinkle seems to be based just as much on his near distaste for her personality than as his need for companionship. Still, Sanjeev’s traditional-ness is emphasized more by the juxtaposition of his being against his wife’s.

             The co-mingling of religious iconography and the importance of one religion’s images over another seems to also be an aspect of their traditional vs. modern dichotomy though it seems to be a whole unto itself as well. Twinkle’s fascination with the Christian objects found in her and Sanjeev’s home eventually endear her to the community she finds herself. Her openness allows both for her assimilation into “Americanness” and into the group invited to her and Sanjeev’s dinner party. The search for religious pieces that takes over party towards the end of the story is also emblematic of both its unifying and divisive qualities. Sanjeev is unable or incapable of participating within the openness of the dinner party group and seeks, instead, solitude – at least solitude from the type of intermingling that appears to go on within his own home.

            There might be some irony in the fact that Sanjeev is in some ways unable to find privacy within his own living space. It seems the idea of the crowdedness of India is a piece of him that he, in a way, rejects, but his wife, Twinkle, who appears to not have that cultural history attached to her, accepts.

            Awareness of hierarchical roles seems to be, in some way, imbedded in the relationship Sanjeev has with Twinkle and the dinner party guests. He remains by the ladder, on the lower floor, when everyone else ascends to the attic in search of fun (pleasure). He is also left carrying the bust of Christ and following behind Twinkle and the party guests at the story’s end. Though he’s attained a high status within American society, its mentioned he’s being considered for Vice President of his firm, he seems to be a notch lower in some ways (perhaps this is related to his inability to be “modern”) than those around him.

Hannah-Lahiri-03/23

As mentioned in Rushdie's Midnight's Children, Lahiri's "This Blessed House" touches upon changing gender roles in seemingly traditional Indian homes. Reverend Mother pretty much ruled her family and took charge when Amina's husband was "frozen". Aadam Aziz was watched by three women when he looked after Naheem through the perforated sheet. Amina had an affair with an old lover and Padma was seen as Salim's partner, not as an inferior woman.

Lahiri takes a similar approach. Sanjeev and Twinkle met through their parents and married soon after. They had a wedding in India after spending two months together. They moved to Connecticut and instead of taking the role of a "traditional" wife, Twinkle smoked, drank and so on. She barely does any work around the house and gets manicures instead. When Sanjeev wanted to get rid of the Virgin Mary statue on the front lawn, Twinkle wouldn't allow it and threw a fit. "In the end they settled on a compromise: the statue would be placed in a recess at the side of the house, so that it wasn't obvious to passers-by, but was still clearly visible to all who came" (403). She basically gets her way, even at the end when she puts the big bust of Jesus on a mantle instead of putting it in her study.

This view of gender roles could be applied to Mistry's story. Mrs. Mody isn't a passive wife, but instead checks up on her husband and Jehangir. She screams at Dr. Mody for spending time with "some stranger" (252) instead of his own son and doesn't reserve herself. She stands up for what she believes in, even though it causes embarrassment upon Jehangir.

Jane- Lahiri- 3/22/11

"We're not Christian," Sanjeev said. Lately he begun noticing the need to state the obvious to Twinkle. The day before he had to tell her that if she dragged her end of the bureau instead of lifting it, the parquet floor would scratch" (Lahiri, 392).

To this Twinkle replies: "No we're not Christian. We're good little Hindus" (Lahiri, 392).

The overall tone of the dynamic between Sanjeev and Twinkle reminded me of what we read in Midnights Children. Their seems to be a sense of condescension on behalf of the husband towards his childish, slightly coquettish wife. Yet, as was the case in Midnights Children in all of the narratives featuring dialogue between man and wife, the wife seems to be more self-aware than she initially lets on.  I also find it interesting that Lahiri goes on to depict Sanjeev has being vain and narcissistic as was the case with Saleem and Aadam in Rushdie's work.

Will - Lahiri - 3/23

One of the things this story has in common with our other readings is a lightly mocking attitude toward religion.  Sanjeev, when looking at the collection of religious kitsch, is "puzzled that each was in its own way so silly.  Clearly they lacked a sense of sacredness."  When Sanjeev informs Twinkle that they are not Christian, she sweetly replies that "We're good little Hindus."  More self-aware, she realizes that there are aspects of Hindu religion that must seem silly as well.  Twinkle is an enigma.  Her motive for marrying Sanjeev is unclear, and the details about her life we are given are mostly meaningless.  She's just kind of a quirky type.

The religious objects that Twinkle finds around the house are silly and kitschy.  But they are also part of a shared, mainstream culture.  Twinkle finds the manger snowglobe funny and charming because she is more comfortable inside this culture, though she is not Christian.  Sanjeev is more of an outsider, like Salim in A Bend in the River, and is simply irritated by these foreign incursions into his space.  Also, similar to Salim, Sanjeev's decision to get married is influenced by pressures from the home he has left, when he'd clearly rather be alone listening to Bach.  He made a mistake getting married if after only a couple months he imagines locking her in the attic and wiping away all trace of her existence from the house (!).

Rachel - Lahiri, 3/22

This story was so well-executed...it blew my mind.  (Also, someone archive this post -  I actually enjoyed two reading assignments in a row!  Surely this is some freak miracle of academia.)

Usually I hate 95% of what I read.  Bad?  Pretentious?  Maybe.  True?  Definitely.  But "This Blessed House" is in that top 5%.

I think this touches on an idea that is common in South Asian literature..."what constitutes good marriage, in the modern, feminist age?"  Amina married for children.  Reverend Mother's mate was chosen for her, by her father.  And Twinkle married for...well.  We aren't quite sure what.  But in Lahiri's text, there are these little snapshots you're handed that just say: "this is my character."  Example?  P. 395: "she dragged him to a tiny bookshop on St. Mark's Place, where she browsed for nearly an hour, and when they left she insisted that they dance a tango on the sidewalk in front of strangers."  She's about to get her master's degree.  (p. 401)  She leaves guests' coats on banisters in the house.  (p. 404)

So what does this make her, as a wife?  I think with India being increasingly exposed to ideas of feminism, it makes one wonder where the "traditional woman" - the kind who is demure to men and cooks - fits in.

Twinkle is a character that sticks with you.  She's like some kind of weird silly putty on your brain.  "She's so wow."  (p. 405)

Karol -Lairi -03/23

Conceptually, the story is easily comprehensible (perhaps that is one its flaws). It is a kind of romance horror where the Hindi couple is absorbing Christian culture via immersion and partial assimilation.

Sanjeev's love for European concerto music withstands the fact that most of that music is dependent on the Judea-Christian inspiration. Twinkle's pursuit in a masters in poetry and they way she is compelled to adopt collect the Christian icons is indicative of the dominance of Christianity not just in English but in all European languages. My atheist self argued with my agnostic self on this subject for quite some time because when you realize that the two are inseparable (religion and language)than it can be overwhelming.

There are flaws in Lahiri's style that defeat her intentions. For instance, the character's body language does not match their dialogue which robs the piece of it's unity. "Where are you going to put it? She asked dreamily, her eyes closed. One of her legs emerged, unfolding gracefully, from the layer of suds. She flexed her toes." (402) In this passage, Lahiri, in my opinion, misses an opportunity. Kinesics is a good study for a writer to be acquainted with . It's not that the scene needs more realism. It's that its just ornamental and nothing else (the way the majority of her flurries of details end) and then the things that are symbols (the feather hat & the relics) are force fed to the audience with their inherent shininess'. At times, this can give the audience the experience of being the other in a Western culture of inadvertently consuming the  underlining morality. But it seems to illuminate an artifact of Lahiri's psyche, more so, spinning the story with so much control that control is lost.

Eidia-Lahiri-3/22

This Blessed House:

Personally, I am not fond of Lahiri's writing style. There is a lack of fluidity, rather there seems to be sharp disconnect in most of her works. While in "This Blessed House", there is a shorter presence of her "choppy" style of writing, she managed to completely bog my mind in her novel "The Namesake". The problem with her work is the lack of balance. In most cases, this author manages to propose two cultural extremes, creating a sharp distinction between Eastern and Western, lacking any sort of dignity. Reading her work is almost nauseating. I am left even more confused as to how I should view my cultural situation. In "This Blessed House", Lahiri presents the married domestic life of a newly married couple, Sanjeev the husband, and Twinkle or properly addressed as Tanima, the wife. As a twist, Lahiri constructs a role reversal, in contrast to the traditional Indian wife who encompasses the qualities of cleanliness, etiquette and culinary skills, Lahiri presents Twinkle as a carefree whimsical figure, easily attracted to simple things. The husband, in this situation, is presented as the contemplative, stoic man, who is more than stable in financial matters, and seems to be constantly yearning for housewifely qualities in his wife; hence, taking on role of household duties such as cooking and cleaning. I can understand Lahiri's attempt to present this renewed sense of Indian domestic life, but it simply does not work. Rereading this short story, I am left once again, with this bitter taste in my mouth, wondering, what exactly is Lahiri doing? 

On a side note, Rohinton Mistry's work, "The Collectors" seems to present a much more direct example of the introvert and the extrovert. His style is sturdy, there is a definite form present in concept and writing style. Without excessive detail, almost succinct, the author brings the reader to understand his motive. Another key point to be noted, Mistry's work is centered within India, it focuses upon Indian people in India; therefore, it lacks the cultural drama of Lahiri's work. 

Joseph-Lahiri-3/22

Jhumpa Lahiri is a more streamlined, overtly empathetic author than the ones we have read so far. There are a lot of convenient signs to unpack here. For example, upon noticing the Christian paraphernalia, Lahiri writes that it is “roughly the same size as the vinegar bottle in the other”, surely not an accidental contrast detail. Like the Misty story, an object binds yet separates these two people. In both stories, interests are together on the surface, but the really important ones divide them.  Sajeev and Twinkie both like P.G Wodehouse, but that’s hardly an indicator of a compatible relationship. The divisions between them are numerous. In “The Blessed House”, Sajeev needs to not only go through every composer (to find a classical music listener is rarer than ever nowadays, and it’s comical that he can’t see the value of items that can’t be put to immediate use); he has to do it in alphabetical order. This highlights the absurdity of his stubbornness.  It would appear that Twinkle has a more layered identity, one that her husband cannot accept.  She appears to be the one with a more stable sense of self, despite being portrayed as “lackadaisical” and the husband being portrayed as fully there. Identity in Lahiri’s story is less concerned with politics and more with empathy, it seems (the vinegar soon turns into water, and in the scene with the blue mask Twinkle is portrayed as a kind of Madonna). Perhaps the largest set political or societal construction of identity is the rather quick marriage. Only after they are married does it appear that they can begin constructing real, more fluid identities; and arrive at the state of grace that the day of marriage is supposed to create.  It is interesting to contemplate whether the ultimate acceptance of these important disparate interests is a matter of pity or love, or perhaps a bit of both. 

Jhumpa Lahiri

As before, post on Lahiri's story looking for themes, techniques, topics etc. that seem characteristic of the South Asian diasporic school. If you did not post on Mistry, you may want to touch on both stories in your response.

Karol -Mistry -03/21

So I realized that I posted to another blog instead of this one. Apologies.

I'm reminded of what we spoke of in class about South Asian literature employing irony more in its attempts at humor. The catalyst that pushes the narrative in this story is also ironic. Since Dr. Mody is a veterinarian his son harassing animals brings him shame and sets him on the path to Jehangir. This story has some interesting plot devices and powerfully strange imagery that at times rivals Rushdie.

Will - Mistry - 3/21

Something this story shares with Rushdie, and even with the first story by Anita Desai we read in class, is the sense that time is malleable, non-linear.  We have spoken in class of the idea of recurrence in the Hindu religion.  This erases the distinction between past and future.  At the beginning of the story, Mistry writes, "Dr. Mody did not know it then, but . . . "  Then Mistry basically gives away what will happen later in the story to Dr. Mody.  There is the sense that this story has already happened even as it is unfolding on the page for the reader.  The shadow of Dr. Mody's death is present even in the joyous moments of the story.  Two years is an atypically long time frame for a short story, but it makes sense if past and future aren't much different.


This approach to fiction eliminates "surprise" for the reader.  It's not even surprising when Mrs. Bulsara reveals that she destroyed the prize stamp of her husband's collection.  This is another aspect of the novels we've read.  Readers will be frustrated if they're looking for plot-driven fiction.  My question is are these works of literature dramatic?  Why do we care to read about people whose fates seem to be decided from the beginning?  Is it because the characters are interesting and the language is beautiful?  

Jane-Mistry-3/20/11

"Finally flies and insects buzzed and hovered over the dregs, little pools of pulses and curries fermenting and frothing til the kuchrawalli came next morning and swept it all away" (Mistry, 237).

I find Mistry's writing style to be positively ingenious. His style seems to meld poetic flourishes with the matter-of-fact realism that we saw in Naipaul. This is a characteristic that seems to run through what we have read so far in this canon. The passage above to me what reminiscent of Midnights Children, particularly in terms of the voice Rushdie employs to narrate the story. Although this story is told from a 3rd person perspective, both narrators are omniscient in that they have total insight into all of the characters and their futures. There is also a sense of irony and satire that couples the image of something as grotesque as rotting garbage with such lyrical, lilting language. Perhaps it is not a kind of patriotic self-loathing that Naipaul has been accused of, but a way of projecting beauty on something that ordinarily wouldn't be thought of as such.

Rachel - Mistry, 3/21

"The Collectors..."  Wow.  Have to admit, I really the anti-consumerist theme in this piece.  (Being a 100% stereotypical New Schooler, however, I tend to think almost ALL writing has an anti-consumerist message, and therefore, has something critical to say.  Biased thinking, w00t.)

I know this post is supposed to comment on a distinctly "South Asian" theme within literature.  However, I think this is somewhat...impossible to do.  While culture and race are powerful factors that alter our perceptions of the world, I think human animals are - at the end of the day - human animals, and they will inevitably focus on the same themes.  In the 21st century, anti-consumerism is something we're fixated on, as a species.  This holds especially true in South Asian countries like Cambodia and India, where the trauma of 19th century genocide or colonialism has not been completely processed.

In Mistry's story, we see a wealthy veterinarian in his house, living with his car, stamp collection, and obnoxious son.  But this character is juxtaposed with beggars on the street, who pick food out of primary school garbage cans once students have finished their lunch hour.

In "The Collectors," the stamp collection symbolizes a material luxury.  It is something that brings the owner pleasure, but is not necessary for survival.  Jehangir even steals stamps so his collection may grow; while this brings him material comfort, it costs store owners their livelihoods.  It shows the class conflict that exists in present day India; at the moment, there are huge gaps between the intelligentsia and the "untouchable" caste.  This is one theme I've been seeing throughout this course, and I would imagine that it will be likewise explored in the next two books we're about to read.  And that's a good thing.

I think it is essential that class differences be grappled with in literature.  I think (and Rushdie would probably agree) that opening a literary dialog is one of the best ways for a culture to absorb the aftershock of trauma.  Whether it's trauma caused by colonialism, loss of culture, war, or poverty, a discourse needs to be opened up.

Good job, Mistry!

Jason-Mistry-3/21

Rohinton Mistry’s The Collectors shares, at least with Midnight’s Children, the theme of parentage as being something not strictly biological. Dr. Mody’s disappointment in his own son, Pesi, leads him to feel some kind of fatherly affection for a boy, Jehangir, who seems to be fatherless. Given this, the story is particularly family-oriented and deals with the disconnectedness that can occur within families. In South Asian literature, the family seems to hold a great deal of importance since it essentially informs the individual member who they are and where they belong. A frequent theme (so far) seems to be the confusion and suffering this type of “familial defining” can cause.

There seems to be a focus on things, items, and objects and how they can influence those who own them, see them, or are aware of them in some way. Stamps are ultimately what bring together and break apart Dr. Mody and Jehangir’s relationship as well as Jehangir’s relationship with Eric D’Costa.

Another theme seems to be “thwarted” or unfulfilled expectations for what life will bring either for oneself or for what one wishes for someone else. In Mistry’s story, Dr. Mody feels empty because of the way Pesi has turned out and how their interests do not align on pretty much any level. His hopes for his son’s life ultimately drive him to fulfill his own wishes, to an extent, with another “son.”

This may be a kind of Dickensian influence (unfulfilled expectations) but I guess it could be interpreted as being related to an aspect of post-colonial literature. It could also be a kind of South Asian (maybe Buddhist or Hindu) preoccupation with the ability or inability to actively influence the course of one’s life.

           

Respond to Rohinton Mistry's "The Collection"

Mistry is one of the most significant current authors of South Asian descent. He lives in Canada, and his best-known novel is A Fine Balance, about the Indira Ghandi era. When responding to this short story - and to all the short stories we'll read, I'd like you to look for anything that seems charateristic of South Asian Diasporic writing. This can be style, character-types, subject matter, use of language, tone... anything. Focus your posts about the story on a distinct way it seems to fit in its genre as South Asian literature.

More on Midnight's Children

I found this article in seed magazine and think that it pertains to Rushdie's book. The basic premise is that the writer of the article cannot reconcile how modern the Buddhist view of the brain is and how it matches the neuroscience of today. I think that his knowledge of Buddhism is limited but the article definitely made me think of Rushdie's fragmented characters and how they are fragments loving fragments. If the Lacan and Turing measure intelligence by a sort of mirror test than our measurement of intelligence is the ability to perceive an illusory persona and even create that persona (and that sounds like psychosis to me).

Buddhism and the brain

Slight change in schedule

The only change is the due date for the exam. Please note it is due on the same day that we begin The God of Small Things. You will have to budget your time to get both done. Note: presentation assigments will be posted here this week.

M 3/21	“The Collectors” by Rohinton Mistry. Post due before class.
W 3/23	“This Blessed House” by Jhumpa Lahiri. Post due before class.
M 3/28	Midterm due. The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy: pp. 3-83. Post due before class.
W 3/30	The God of Small Things, pp. 84-147. Post due before class.
M 4/4	The God of Small Things, pp. 148-225. Post due before class.
W 4/6	Finish The God of Small Things. Post due before class.

Jason-Rushdie-3/9

The idea of atomizing the world, or a world-view, to the extent that the only means of making sense of it or making an intelligible picture of it is through the use of the imagination, of both the writer and the reader, does seem to give an overarching structure to Midnight’s Children. It seems that a nostalgia for the past, or at least just past events themselves are what constitute this conception of imagination.

But there still seems to be some kind of irony in this idea as it is presented in the novel in that in the novel’s conclusion there’s a sense that self-awareness, or the need to construct a picture of reality for oneself is ultimately doomed in the face of the same atomized world that prompts this need for picture-construction. In this sense, I’m not sure if Saleem’s story, which he admits he creates for his son (at one point), is a precautionary tale, suggesting his path is something to be avoided (which would result in some kind of success for future generations) or an affirmation of futility.

Saleem frequently mentions that “form,” which seems to include the repetition of recurring cycles beyond individual control (people, things, emotions, ideas, etc.) is unavoidable. Though at the same time Saleem seeks to create his own form or narrative or history. It seems the end of the book leaves you with a kind of stalemate between the ability to force your will onto the world or the world’s ability to force its will one you. I guess the other possibility that’s suggested is the idea that the world does what it wants no matter what and the individual either has the ability to be aware of that force or not.

Anna –Rushdie- 3/9

"Unless history is a plot, god forbid."

"Rushdie is partly guilty of the sin of polly gluttony." Yes. Too much too focus on. It reminds me of when I was a child and would draw a maze for my brother to solve on roadtrips and I would draw extra parts of the maze that you cold not connect to if you tried but it added layers of confusion. My brother called this extra fat. And I love Rushdie but it isn't usual that we appreciate the extra fat before the core.

I like Rushdie even more in person, than with just his brain on paper, but he sounds impossible! What an absurd second book to come out with!

michael Rushdie

i thought it was very interesting how rushdie described the part in midnights children when the doctor meets his future wife through different part of the perforated sheet, and how he uses that as a symbol for the entirety of the book, showing how it is made up of small pieces that make a whole. in a sense it reminds me of the line in the book where he says shape can be found in anything. I also found the discussion of free speech interesting because though this might not relate, saleem as the narrator in the book expresses an intense amount of free speech in the fictionalization of history and the use of holy figures for somewhat ironical situations.

As an ending i cant help but feel that saleems death was inevitable, since throughout the novel he mentions how he feels he coming apart, falling into 600 million specks of dust only seems fair. While i found the book to be ridiculous in a good and humors sense i think it will take my re reading it over and over again to fully appreciate its splendor.

Karol - Rushdie -03/09

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

8:38 PM

Rushdie's world view of the planet being fragmented to a point that no one group has legitimacy and the importance of free speech as a universal desire are interesting. A question that this book has raised for me is this: why do statistics serve to scare us but never make us feel better? I mean, there are statistics that anyone can find on themselves where they are on the right side of the data and some of us know them but for some reason it gives us no solace.

What Edward Said says about his career in advertising copy reflects in his art (in a good way) is poignant. In many ways people who work in advertising are hounds, understanding human nature better than most of us. There is limit to this kind of knowledge and there is such a thing as knowing just enough to be dangerous. The affect he uses processes the images in a propaganda-like manner (again, not negatively).

I digress, I think that the book is beautiful but  will have to read it many more times to understand it. The humor is unique, it illuminates the ordinary in an endearing way that preserves the image. The cast of "pickled souls" will be marching around in mind for quite some time. 

Joseph-Rushdie-3/9

I found myself trying to reconcile many things in Midnight's Children, and it's ultimate place in the history of literature. For example, we know that this book is heavily influenced by Arabian Nights. Rushdie mentions it from the start: “I must work fast, faster than Scheherazade , if I am to end up meaning—yes meaning—something”.  Scheherazade's concerns are much more immediate than Saleems. The story needs to go on and on and be prolonged because of the impending death. Saleem has a considerably greater amount of time, and it's apparent that his lengthy prose may do him a disservice in conveying any message before his death. Of course, if we are to consider this, we have to consider that it is all a big ruse and Rushdie has no point to make. For Rushdie(and every satirist) it is hard to avoid destroying something only to end up standing for nothing, or ending up reinforcing the things it is satirizing. It is interesting to wonder how Rushdie has treated these two properties that every Satirist must consider.


In an earlier interview, Rushdie states:


"In a country like India, you are basically never alone. The idea of solitude is a luxury

which only rich people enjoy. For most Indians the idea of privacy is very remote.

When people perform their natural functions in public, you don’t have the same idea

of privacy. So it seemed to me that people lived intermingled with each other in a way

that perhaps they don’t anymore in the west, and that it was therefore idiotic to try

and consider any life as being discrete from all other lives."

This gives clear reasoning as to why the story is told in such a fragmentary, epic comic, and sprawling manner.  Could it possibly also reinforce stereotypes of India? Is Rushdie expressing a static viewpoint of India, and perhaps illustrating it under the manner of all that we've come to expect from postcolonial literature(complete with myths, magic, etc etc? Midnight's Children is a seminal work that merges the influences of both East and West(At one point a boy attends an 'Eastern Western'), and I wonder about how effectively it manages to be a open ended discourse.

In regards to Edward Said, in his book Orientalism he quotes this passage from Flaubert:

"On the road from Cairo to Shubra some time ago a young fellow had himself public

ally buggered by a large monkey—as in the story above to create a good opinion of

himself and make people laugh.

A marabout died a while ago—an idiot—who had long passed as a saint marked

by God; all the Moslem women came to see him and masturbated him—in the end he

died of exhaustion—from morning till night it was a perpetual jacking off."

I thought this could somewhat relate to the Rushdie quote above; this idea of performing 'natural functions' in public.  I think,  for me, it is sometimes difficult to imagine what Rushdie supports and what he is satirizing. That ambiguity seems to to be a fundamental tenant of post-modern literature. Linda Hutcheon states, 'In granting value to (what the centre calls) the margin or Other, the post-modern challenges any hegemonic force that presumes centrality, even as it acknowledges that it cannot privilege the margin without acknowledging the power of the centre'. What is the line between reinforcing something or bringing it to attention so as to remove it? I often find this an interesting question in satire, and I think Midnights Children rewards a wealth of study in this regard. It has clearly succeeded in inspiring a discourse, and I am not reticent to call this book a classic.

Hannah-Rushdie-03/09

In Rushdie's interview (around 20 minutes in), he says that understanding reality means grasping the whole picture. He also states that the world has become "too fragmented... for anyone to see everything". Rushdie explains that those who don't necessarily see their own realities as a whole and instead see it as a smashed mirror is insane. Saleem can definitely be called crazy, but throughout the novel he's putting the pieces of the mirror (reality and his history) back together, thus being relieved of the cracks that consume his life (he says that maybe Padma's love can put him back together, but also suggests he's going to die no matter what).

"Looking upwards into the mirror, I saw myself transformed... reminded me vividly of my grandfather Aadam Aziz on the day he told us about seeing God... The young-old face of the dwarf in the mirror wore an expression of profound relief" (514-515). Saleem hasn't necessarily put all the pieces of his life together because he's still contemplating his death, but he decides to write about the future instead. He's finally done writing about the past, seeing the smashed mirror coming together once and for all.

Rachel, Rushdie - 9/7

Oh Rushdie.  Your voice is just as deep and narrative as I would expect from a British guy.

Anyway, I didn't like the book Midnight's Children - it dragged on too long, I wasn't satisfied with the hero's eventual marriage to Padma (I had kind of assumed they were married already?)  In my view, this dragged on too long.  The thematic undercurrents of it were violently pushing me around and I drowned....in the literary sense.

But just because I didn't like the work doesn't mean I can't love the man behind it.  Rushdie was stellar in this interview.  When he describes humans as "storytelling animals?"  Brilliant.  My favorite quote: "We define ourselves by stories...if someone tries to control that, we simply, in my view, cannot be ourselves."

Tell it like it is, brother!  Remember North Korea!!

Will - Rushdie - 3/9

Around the 19:30 mark on the video, Rushdie mentions the "perforated sheet" through which Aadam Aziz falls in love with Naseem.  He says that in a way, that is how the book is constructed:  in fragments.  This is how we've seen the perforated sheet, as a metaphor for the fragmented vision of the world presented in the novel.  "Nobody has "whole sight," he says, no one knows everything about the world.  The narrator Saleem doesn't even know everything about the world he describes.  But Rushdie adds that the fragments are "united by the imagination of the writer."  So, though the world presented in Midnight's Children is fragmented, it is not random.  The book does have its own internal logic, though maybe no one but Rushdie will understand all the allusions.  Saleem's birth is mirrored by the birth of Aadam, the Ganesh-shaped child, a child born at the exact moment of Indian Emergency.  The book is filled with transformations, doubles.

At the half-hour point in the video, Rushdie mentions that if a person marries into a new family, he or she is not a real member of the family until they know the stories of the family.  That sort of highlights the oral history aspect to the novel.  Saleem invites the reader into his family, telling us the stories.  In this way, the stories are preserved.  We try to endlessly analyze the text, but it's nice to think of it as just a simple guy telling his story so it's not forgotten.

And it ends with a wedding! Rushdie's masterpiece concluded.

Northrop Frye, the great critic who wrote Anatomy of Criticism, noted that a comedy always ends with a wedding. Also, maybe less surprisingly the book ends with pickles and snakes. As a somewhat low-impact post for the conclusion, please screen the Columbia University interview with Rushdie, conducted fairly recently, but focusing on Midnight's Children. Then, with Rushdie's comments in mind, make any summing-up remarks on the book as a whole. Remember, as discussed on 3/7, we have to decide where the book is headed on a macro level in order to write about a specific theme. While Rushdie is not necessarily the expert on his own work, his comments may certainly color the way we see it.

The Rushdie interview, it shoud be said, is mostly about the fatweh and only tangentially about MC. For a more direct treatment of MC - and if you just can't get enough - view the top video, also from Columbia, and featuring Edward Said, who pioneered the idea of "orientalism." We will probably flip through this later video in class a bit.

An unrelated matter: the short story readings due for the class after break will be available by Friday in packet form at Village Copier, on 13th between 5th and University. On Wednesday, we will discuss the format and design for your midterm essay, due the Wednesday after spring break.

Michael rUSHdie---------

The passage beginning on page 411 starting with "futility of statistics" captures my attention in the way the narration of a tv show or a movie might. maybe a documentary, where the narrator insists that no words can describe the number in the migration to india. The rhythm is maintains a sort of domino effect in which with a list of a question  effectively being answered one after the other. Saleem speaks in a sort of thrid person when mention the buddha man-dog beast, my favorite line is "the buddha was not the only one who did what he was told" because i would consider the buddha to be one who does the opposite which i feel points out the humourous contradiction of calling himself the buddha in the section, it shows the absurd and  holy as rushdie does throught most of the novel.

anna –Rushdie- 3/7

first section, page 337 is a repetition of the begging of the book with the same general "format" lots of , "No that wont do"s and then, "theres no getting away from the date." The whole thing is meant to be a circle I suppose, because he uses the exact same phrases of "spell it out" , and "at the precise time of.." The language is as cutesey as it is poetic i.e. "heartboot"It is almost as if Rushie has the whole way of writing ingrained in his head as very logical, how he starts abstract, moves to micro to macro, and the language dances the reader through it and along

Jason - Rushdie - 3/7

The beginning of the passage on 390 starts with questions, “Who died in the holy war?” and so on. These questions create a sense of anticipation and mirror or become in some way similar to the falling bombs Saleem describes in the next paragraph. The questions leave the impression of things “being up in the air,” things with answers are similarly “explosive,” in that we learn that Saleem essentially loses his family and with it his life as a part of a family.

            Saleem describes the bombs dropped by the aircrafts involved in the raid as “actual or mythical.” This distinction he creates implies a meaning separate from the physical result (the deaths) that the bombings produces. The section in which Saleem says that there are more bombs remaining to be told of, creates another sense of anticipation for the bombs to actually go off and explode. Saleem interrupts himself while explaining the consequences of the bombing raid to describe the death of Mutasim the Handsome by the bullet of a sniper. This creates more tension and serves as a kind of device for the reader to picture the bombs falling, as if in a movie, in such a way that the bombs are superimposed over the image of Mutasim’s death. This technique is explicitly used and described in a later chapter. It also “buys time” for the bombs to fall (which creates a sense of realism) and correlates the sound of a whizzing bullet with (presumably) the screeching noise of a falling bomb.

This sequence is both an end and a beginning. The passage literally closes the “chapter” or second book of Saleem’s childhood and begins another section of his life (or the retelling of his life).

There’s also a reference to the perforated sheet in this passage. In this instance Saleem seems to analogize the hole in the sheet with a kind of bombing target. Even though the hole resembles a “smoke-image” of (presumably) Naseem Aziz after the bombs have been dropped, the implication seems to be, at least to me, that Saleem understands that his family was specifically targeted.

Jane- Rushdie- 3/7/11

2. What I found to be striking about the passage that begins: "They had even began to sleep together again; and although my sister- with a flash of her old Monkey-self- said, "In the same bed, Allah, chi-chhi, how dirty!" (Rushdie, 341) was how less fanciful, and more self-aware and colloquial it is compared to much of the narrative. Salim's voice retains the same raconteur quality that has dominated much of the book until this point, wherein he appears more vulnerable, particularly when he speaks of his losing favor amongst his fellow Midnights Children. I also find aching the moment where he speaks of the disingenuousness he feels about the sense of reunion amongst the other Children as he writes: "We repeated, over and over again, our joy at being back together; ignoring the deeper truth- that we were like all families, that family reunions are more delightful in prospect than in reality, and that the time comes when all families must go their separate ways" (Rushdie, 341).

Joseph-Rushdie-3/7

Saleem Sinai has long been championing himself as a human solid, but this is an instance when he considers that perhaps he may be a human surd.

The selection starts off with a repetition of 'silence' paired with parentheses:

'Silence outside me. A dark room(blinds down). Can't see anything(nothing there to see).

Silence inside me. A connection broken(for ever). Can't hear anything(nothing there to hear).

Silence, like a desert. And a clear, free nose(nasal passages full of air). Air, like a vandal, invading my private places.

Drained. I have been drained. The parahamsa, grounded. (For good).'

First off, we can note the parallels and rhythm of this section: It goes from silence inside, to silence outside, to silence all around. It goes from not being able to hear anything to not being able to see anything. Desert is followed by 'drained'. Fatalistic statements like 'for ever' are followed by 'for good'. It's a wondrous notion that air would be draining something: Saleem blows a lot of hot air, and it seems to have become so full that the draining is removing the surface elements, stripping Saleem's prose style down to a bare minimum. Interestingly enough though, this part is the most obtuse and the most minimal, and continues with the fatal attitude towards language that a lot of this section adopts.

 'Parahama' is an interesting and evocative word choice. Parahamsa is typically represented as a wild swan. The image of a wild swan in the desert is a bizarre pairing, but it works. This is not just any bird that has landed in a desert: It is the bird that most symbolizes water and grace, and the choice to place the swan in the desert is jarring.

The next paragraph Saleem begins with 'O, spell it out, spell it out' and proceeds to spell out his predicament in a detached, almost medical tone: 'obstensible', 'draining of my inflamed sinuses', etc etc. It's a bit strange for Saleem to begin with an 'O' and then proceed to speak in such a matter of fact, detached manner.

The final paragraph finds Saleem outlining all the possible meanings of the last name Sinai,and ones ultimate bondage to their name : Many connections are mythical and Rushdie sets up the prose like an ascending tower to Babel: The paragraph is almost made into one long sentence linking together all different interpretations underneath the repetition of 'also'. It's like Rushdie stacks the meaning upon another: 'But also', 'And there is also', 'and also'. All these meanings layered upon another are ultimately futile by the conclusion of the passage, which mirrors the style of the spare opening: "It is the name of the desert-of barrenness, infertility, dust;the name of the end'. Our language limits are the limits of our world, and if we examine the 'Iceberg theory' populated by Hemingway, we can see that perhaps Rushdie is asserting that no amount of myth or language can escape a larger,ever present force: All of the iceberg is on the surface and there is nothing underneath.