POPPIES #5: a comedy of errors

Comment on scenes from this part of the book that involve misunderstandings and the resulting comedy. In most cases, these misundersandings are due to problems with differing language. Please find a scene and include a relevant quote, illustrating these misunderstandings and their importance. Suggestions:

1. Neel's judgment scene: i.e. when his sentence is pronounced by the long-winded judge. Note the difference between the judge's use of high-flown language and Neel's thoughts and state of mind at this time.
2. Neel is subject to a physical exam and the tattooing of his sentence on his body. The tattoo artist is a loyal subject of the former zemindar. Neel vows to always speak English in the future. He has been renamed. Themes: language, renaming, reversal of fortune, cleanliness.
3. Paulette's discussion with Mrs. Burnham regarding the judge and possible marriage. The scene is full of misunderstandings, some of them comic, but Paulette's expectations about "love" and Mrs. Burnham's expectations of a woman's lot are starkly opposed. Mrs. Burnham's attitude that you can "learn to love" resembles that of Mumtaz in Rushdie. Examine the scene.
4. Life aboard the ship in several scenes involves a lot of jokes and comedy and hazing of sorts. Find a scene dramatizing this, and analyze the nature of the humor. In nearly every case, it has to do with language.
5. Perhaps most striking: Paulette's discussion with Neel at Neel's boarding house. This is clearly almost slapstick comedy, with Paulette struggling to describe the sermons and sexual hijinks to which Mr. Burnham subjects her. Is there a satire of some contemporary mix of religion and sex here? This is another scene in which a woman shows radical innocence of sex and male anatomy - to the point of absurdity. How does this add to our understanding of Burnham? The issue of purity or cleanliness takes on another meaning here.
6. Kalua receives a new name as the coolies arrive and are received by Baboo Nob Kissin. So, this is one of many scenes of renaming. Note the way Kalua is treated and received: he is defined very much by his body.
7. The various rumors aboard ship are worthy of note. Is Ghosh referring to some historical events? The passengers are afraid they are going to be eaten, drained of essential oils, or taken to prison.
8. This is somewhat out of order: Neel's reception of his wife while in prison and the issues of caste and the loss thereof. Here we learn more of Neel's mixed personality: his freedom-loving ideals which clash with his actual life and personality. It is his beliefs that are misplaced - they do not fit his life or person.

Or: find your own passage having to do with language, failures of comprehension, and other comedic scenes.

Hannah-Ghosh-04/27

(Sorry, my post is a bit late)
"The Ganges" by Julie Dunn discusses the Ganges River and its importance to India. "This river is life, purity, and a goddess to the people of India".
Key points:
- The Ganges River runs for 1,560 miles from the Himalayas to the bay of Bengal.
- Every morning, devout Hindus give offerings, such as flowers or food, to the river and drink the water and save some for their homes.
- Many surround the river, face towards the sun and recite prayers.
- Since the Ganges river is associated with the World of Ancestors, people bring their dead, either a body or ashes, to the river. If not, the dead are believed to be roaming in a state of limbo, causing trouble to those still alive.
- For the living, bathing in the Ganges is important because it is seen as a way to purify oneself and to get rid of sins.
- But the Ganges is polluted with waterborne diseases, such as hepatitis, dysentery and cholera. This is problematic for the people who use the river for cooking, cleaning and bathing.

This view on the Ganges River is mirrored in Ghosh's Sea of Poppies because of its symbolic nature. The characters that we are introduced to in the beginning (Deeti, Zachary, Kalua, etc.) all end up on the Ibis one way or another in order to escape burdens of their past. Being on the river is a form of rebirth, cleansing them of their previous lives and sins. As mentioned in class, Nob Kissim and Deeti are given a chance to escape the caste system, with Kissim boarding the Ibis and Deeti on Kalua's raft (also on the Ibis when she changed her name to Aditi and claimed she is a Chamars). "What's wrong wtih you, Munia? How does all that matter any more? We're all sisters now, aren't we?" (230). The river and the Ibis transcend caste systems and personal inflictions pertaining to caste society.

Jason-Ghosh-4/27

The article seems to emphasize the two major ways Krishna is generally understood by, the historical and the mythical. In the mythical context, Krishna is a trickster. By comparison, the author of the article discusses how it has been suggested that this Krishna, the one of myth, is not necessarily a great role model for a society primarily because Krishna’s attributes and character do not stress societal controls and the importance of social and political institutions to govern people and their actions. Also, this mythical Krishna does not really “stack up” to figures like Mohammad or Jesus. Krishna instead seems “immature.” But on the other hand the “historical” Krishna seems to be essentially the opposite of the mythical one. The historical Krishna seems to have performed important acts that encouraged and later brought about an important victory in war.

            In terms of what this information brings to the book, I think it might shed some light on Nob Kissin’s character and the nature of his religious faith. Kissin’s religious devotion seems to have two sides to it in the way representations of Krishna do. Kissin is in some ways conniving and tricky, he’ll do what he needs to in order to get what he wants in terms of the realization of his religious goals. But he’s also wise (perhaps for the same reasons), he brings the Paulette her locket back, perhaps symbolizing the duality of his religious nature. He’ll give as a sign of good-will, but also take in order to better assure the success of his plans.

Jane-Ghosh-4/26/11

"'So there you are: that's the jadoo of the colonies. A boy who's crawled up through the hawse-holes can become as grand a sahib as any twice-born Company man. Every door in Calcutta thrown open. Burra-khanas at Government House. Choti hazri at Fort Williams. No BeeBee so great as to be durwauza-bund when he comes calling. His personal shoke might be for Low-Church evangelism, but you can be sure the Bishop always has a pew waiting for him. And to seal it all, Miss Catherine Bradshaw for a wife- about as pucka a memsahib as ever there was, a brigadier's daughter'" (Ghosh, 76).

This was one of the most explicit passages Ghosh writes regarding class mobility. Tellingly, it is said by Serang Ali, a person of such low caste that Burnham doesn't acknowledge except to ask Zachary is he would 'vouch' for him. Burnham began his career as a low-level seaman and in seeing his own greater capabilities he was able to shrewdly manipulate and utilize connections, going from being the commander of a slave/prisoner ship to running his own fleet. Ghosh satirizes Burnham's piety by saying that although evangelism is at best a garden variety Christian off-set religion, Burnham is still a formidable presence in it (which matters most). The principle idea behind the caste system being that social class provides the framework for personal morals and responsibilities is one that Ghosh seems to mock. Burnham's transformation seems to be more aligned with varna, in that his sheer will power and savviness transcended his social rank as the son of menial laborers. Also, his mocking tone stems from that he is observing that this is a trademark of the colonies and implies he believes that Burnham is undeserving of his status.

Will - 4/27 - Ghosh

According to the text I read by Huston Smith, Hinduism acknowledges that people have desires.  The basic desires are for pleasure and material success, which are insufficient goals because they are purely selfish.  Some people move away from these goals to a life of duty (to one's family, community, the Raja, etc.).  Duty fails as an ultimate goal because family, community, and all worldly life is finite and tragic.  One is left with the desire for liberation, which is the goal of Hinduism.  There are limits to liberation like physical and psychological pain, boredom, ignorance, and death, but these can all be overcome.  To be liberated is to be without limits, to transcend the human, to find the true SELF at the core of one's being beneath all the distractions of the world and false egotism.  With liberation comes infinite being (as opposed to death), awareness (knowledge, answers), and joy (as opposed to futility).

In the novel, it seems that all of the characters desire liberation with the exception of Burnham who is content with pleasure and success.  The Smith article describes how there different paths to liberation which correspond with different types of people:  the path through knowledge for reflective people, the path through love for emotional people, the path through works for active people, and the path through psychological exercise for pragmatic/experimental people.  All the paths converge on an identical liberation.  In the novel all the characters travel through different paths that converge on the Ibis.  It's tempting to categorize characters into which path they take:  Neel through knowledge and reflection, Zachary through action, Paulette through experimentation, Deeti through love.  Baboo Nob Kissin (victim of many dick jokes) is harder to categorize though.  Is he achieving liberation through dilligent works?  Through channeling his prodigious love of Taramony toward God?  The other characters become harder to categorize once you start thinking about them more.  They may all be on the path through love, which is described as the most popular path.

Karol- Ghosh- 04/25

This is my late response from Monday:

Neel's need for cleanliness can be ascertained through his need and public declaration of " a well lit outhouse." Pertinent to his need for cleanliness is his desire to make that cleanliness public. The outhouse is usually reserved for officers aligning Neel's desire for purity with his desire to be acknowledged by the hegemonic state. His  adoption of Western culture is reminiscent of one who changes ideology because of the 'stronger magic' wielded by hegemon.   

"Neel had been brought up to regard his body and its functions with fastidiousness that bordered almost on the occult... (his mother had) devoted her considerable intelligence to the creation of fantastically elaborate rituals of cleanliness an purification..." (180)

It seems that Neel's obsessive cleanliness is only associated with his shame and guilt at being conquered. As lng as he can mimic the oppressor it appears that he is only oppressing himself. By showing that these habits originated in Neel's mother Ghosh reveals another image of emasculation.

SEA 4: quick research assignments

These links - from university websites - provide some background which may hopefully illuminate the facts behind this history-rich novel. Summarize (or include some key points from) the linked material in your post and comment on how it affects the way you see the story (if it does). In class, I'll ask you to say a few words about the topic.

Hannah: the Ganges River.
Anna: the practice of sati (click "next page" to read all pages).
Will: overview of Hinduism (by the classic scholar of religion Huston Smith).
Karol: article on the ship's destination, Mauritius, and the slave trade there. The article is a bit technical, but has some points of interest.
Dan: timeline of the opium trade and a piece on the opium trade in China.
Jason: the worship of Krishna.
Joseph: a piece in the London Times about the Maharajas.
Rachel: a piece about the untouchables.
Jane: a simple and short piece on caste and reincarnation (click through to read all pages).
Michael: general history of opium (click through to read all pages).
Eidia: a piece on the Lascars.

You may, of course, want to read other links that were not assigned to you. In class, Will will lead us through the next section of Sea.

Anna 4/25 Ghosh

The more I read this book, the more I wonder how the author is pulling off such a pot driven piece. After last week I assumed the action would die down and the history and political threads would carry the book through the end. But it is halfway through, and Ghosh is still introducing new characters and rapidly giving them the ups and downs. Is this a movie yet?

(And yet for all the actionpack Gosh still knows how to tell a good novel story. Ex. page 171. The pacing, checking back in on characters, insights between characters to segway.

I was very surprised about the character Deeti is turning out to be. I didnt think she would because a sati either, but did I miss an inference she had always liked Kalua or is it just her cultural values and religion to accept that she has been giving this "rebirth" /second chance?

I am having trouble talking about this book in a academic way because it feels so gossipy and movie action drawn. and bright. Everything that happens in the book is flouresent lit.

Will - 4/25 - Ghosh

"Neel had been brought up to regard his body and its functions with a fastidiousness that bordered almost on the occult" (183).

Neel is not a germ-a-phobe as it was not until the late 19th century that scientists proved that germs cause disease.  He is concerned with spiritual defilement, something mysterious that can be fended off only with constant vigilance.  The opium trade from which Neel profited destroys lives everywhere from farmers like Deeti to addicts in China, and when Neel stands trial for forgery he gets no love from the people of lesser caste his family has exploited for generations.  Neel may be trying unconsciously to scrub off this stain of guilt.  This is impossible because the violence inherent in the opium trade permeates every aspect of life in this novel.  The wealth of his estate is entirely dependent on opium, and Neel's association with the unsavory British merchants is particularly distasteful to him.

Neel's fastidiousness about keeping his body clean is described as a legacy from his mother, who had to wash her hands for a half hour before and after every meal (183).  She was neglected by Neel's father, who enjoyed good relations with the British because all he did was throw parties and sleep around.  So Neel's obsession with his body is partly due to weird issues with his parents.  After his arrest the narrator remarks that for Neel "no aspect of his captivity held greater terror than the thought of sharing a shit-hole with dozens of common prisoners" (184).  Neel will have nothing to do with any commoners.  In this way he is not any better than the British imperialists who abuse the Indians who work at their opium plants or sail on their ships.  From a Marxist perspective the feudal lord is even more an enemy than the bourgeois capitalists.  The British might even be doing good by erasing the caste distinctions.

Jason-Ghosh-4/25

At this point in the novel, it seems almost all the principal characters experience some kind of “rebirth” except for Burnham and Doughty (perhaps all the white Englishmen). Deeti’s rebirth is perhaps the most explicit example. It is stated outright by the narrator (maybe even Deeti herself) that some kind of rebirth has taken place in her life. Part of that rebirth seems to be choosing or assuming a new caste. Zachary, Paulette, Jodu, Neel, and Kalua all seem to be experiencing a change of their status in society.

In a similar way to Deeti’s, their lives are “reborn” and assume new shapes and circumstances. It seems only Neel experiences a change for the worse, perhaps because as a Raja, he has no palce to go but down. In another sense, Nob Kissin is the only character that actively seeks to be “reborn,” all other characters seem to simply endure the rebirth that comes their way.

I’m not sure if Nob Kissin’s desire to be transformed is in some way ironic since he wants it so much and doesn’t seem to get it fully (at least so far). Though by comparison, Nob Kissin is not necessarily as righteous and good as Deeti seems to be. Kissin seems to use his status as leverage for positioning himself to get what he wants. He’s also implicated in Neel’s arrest. Deeti on the other hand seems to be a victim. In this respect she has some kind of inherent moral high ground that Nob Kissin only “pretends” to have.

Jane-Ghosh-4/24/11

I have been thinking a lot about the role of sexuality in the book and the corresponding themes of shame and curiosity that come with it. Interestingly, this does not only apply to the women, as is the case with a lot of what we've read so far, especially in Midnights Children. The scene wherein Deeti uncovers Kalua's naked body after being beaten by the landowners is a striking and visceral passage and Ghosh goes to great lengths to express Deeti's fear of Kalua finding a way of recalling that night when she had caressed his naked body out of curiosity. Much of the conflict for Deeti lies in the parallel situation she was placed in, or believes she was placed in, on her wedding night. Deeti's shame is multi-layered- Kalua is of a lower caste, if he were to remember he would be overwhelmed by the disgrace of having been witnessed being beaten, and she is embarrassed of her own sexual desires and perhaps wonders whether she is in fact as debased as her in laws who she believes took advantage of her, though in a far more severe manner.

Rachel - Ghosh, 4/25

Locket...not the most original symbol in a book.  I was surprised Ghosh used it, actually.  But I think that's part of what makes Sea of Poppies an epic; it uses tropes that we are familiar with, and presents them in an interesting way.  Was this the most commercially successful book we've read?  I forget...but probably, based on the content we've been through so far.

The locket is Paulette's last connection to her biological parents.  Even though the engraving on the enamel shows a portrait of her mother, the story associated with the necklace (told to her by Nob Kissin Pander) is about her father.  Obviously, because of his compassion for the poor, he's a positive character.  This holds especially true within the political context of Sea of Poppies, which is decidedly liberal.

But I think the locket, to Paulette, represents the hopes her biological father had for her success.  It is a reminder to be wary of her decisions in life, because once upon a time, a caring father tried to pawn this precious jewelry so that she would be able to go back to Europe.  So in this way, it's a symbol of paternal love.  It's a connection to the past.  It's also a reminder that human beings are not entirely self-interested, and that they can have genuine compassion for an individual other than themselves.

Joseph-Ghosh-4/25

I was most interested in two key scenes that deal with Deeti and the handling of the body/sexuality. I chose to focus on two scenes: Deeti and naked Kalua(from Chapter 3), and Deeti/Chandan(from Chapter 6)

In Chapter 3, Ghosh writes: 'The events of that night had attained a guilty vividness in her memory. Often, as she lay beside her opium-dazed husband, her mind would revisit the scene, sharpening the details and refreshing certain particulars--all of this without her permission and despite her every effort to steer her thoughts in other directions. Her discomfort would have been greater still if she had believed that Kalua had access to the same images and recollections--but she had, as yet, seen no sign that he remembered anything from that night. Still, a nagging doubt remained, and since then she had always taken great care to avoid his eyes, shrouding her face in her sari whenever he was near(p. 58).' Eye contact, the most central connection, is avoided. Any notion of talking is completely avoided. It is, in many ways, the central definition of embarrassment: You know that I know that you know. To talk about it would be to add another layer of pain. I get the sense that Kalua has some conception of what occurred, and I think Deeti does as well. But, both are content to let it stay within themselves.

In chapter 6, we are witness to Chandan Singh's harassment of Deeti. Deeti, due to her financial constraints, cannot deny Chandon's offer of 'nourishing satua', but she does resist his sexual advances. There is a sense of partialism(like in 'Midnight's Children') in Chandon's advances towards Deeti. It becomes an almost deadly game of cat and mouse. Ghosh writes: 'But once past the door, he paid no attention to his brother and had eyes only for Deeti: even as he was entering he would brush his hand against her thigh. Sitting on his brother's bed, he would look at her and fondle himself through the folds of his dhoti; when Deeti knelt to feed Hukan Singh, he would lean so close as to brush her breats with his knees and elbows. His advances became so aggressive that Deeti took to hiding a small knife in the folds of her sari, fearing that he might attack her, right on her husband's bed.'

But Ghosh immediately brings this tension to an unexpected zenith:

'The assault, when it came, was not physical, but rather an admission and an argument.'

SEA OF POPPIES: THE USES OF HISTORY

First, look this over and read as much as you can. It's an historical account of the first Opium War; it's long, but a lot of it is pictures, including some representations of the boats that were used to transport opium. You can probably speed-read a lot of it pretty quickly. For a contrasting view, read this. It is a short essay questioning the common view that the Anglo-Sino war as largely an attempt to force the opium trade on China.

Focus your post on the key issues of this excerpt:

• the symbolism of the locket which the Gomusta, or agent, gives to Paulette. Why does he do it? What does the stress on this locket say about the themes of the book?
• the character of the Gomusta as shown in his encounter with Paulette and in the passages about his past and devotion to Ma Taramony. He is the first detailed figure of a religious Hindu we have seen, and the relationship between his faith and his actions is most interesting.
• Paulette's identification of Jodu's boat, her eventual reunion with him aboard the Ibis, and her flirtation with Zachary: she is one lucky gal
• the role of ideas as they influence the characters: Neel has read Hobbes and Hume; Paulette is the daughter of a freethinking liberal; of course, Burnham takes an extreme view of free trade as a religion transcending English law and the notion of "rights" proposed by Locke or Hume; Baboo Nob Kissin has a unique point of view. Are ideas and philosophies are force for liberation or a delusion?
• the treatment of the body and nudity: Kalua's nudity as encountered by Deeti; Jodu's concerns aboard the Ibis about his clothing and body; Paulette's worries about indecency; Nob Kissin's horror at the notion of contact with a woman; Neel's fastidiousness, which he is forced to relinquish; the perverse sexuality of Burnham and the leering Chandan Singh: it is difficult to cope with one's body in this world. How does this compare to other books?
• Chandan Singh's encounter with Deeti and his proposal to her: how does Ghosh portray him as evil? What does Deeti's refusal say about her character?
• Neel's arrest and the strategy used to entrap him: what is the significance of the charge of forgery? How does Neel bring about his own downfall? His failings seem to lie in his difference from his father.
• Kalua's dramatic rescue of Deeti: surely this scene is right out of The Scarlet Pimpernel or something. One is curious about the oafish Kalua as a character. Every figure here appears to represent something: what does he represent? What does his successful rescue tell us about him?
• Deeti is "reborn" after her rescue, and Nob Kissin lives in hope of a promised rebirth. Comment on the uses of the Hindu idea of rebirth in this novel? In previous books, religious beliefs were either slightly comical or burdensome. How do they come across here?
• The continued concern with cleanliness as emphasized in Neel's imprisonment. Certainly this theme has overtones of moral cleanliness - a part of Hinduism, but implies more than that: a desire to be free of unwanted influences. Is there a criticism of Indian society here? Is this a way that the author draws connections between the Indians and the British, both concerned with cleanliness (for the English, it's "next to Godliness")?
• Comment on Nob Kissin's role in the downfall of Neel. If he is so religious and moral, how is it possible that he acts so unscrupulously?

ghosh michael

The ibis acts as a projection of mixed characters stuck within the stings an empires history. This includes the uncertainties of their lives and their home styled routines. tHE IBIS ALLOWS for a community to form among the people on the ship.

Cut off from their roots, in transit, and looking ahead to a fresh start, the migrants are prone to invent new names and histories. For some, like Paulette, disguised as an Indian coolie to escape her guardian, the "layers of masking" do no more than bear witness to a human being's "multiplicity of selves". For others, like Zachary, the second mate, the truth is bleaker by far. The son of a slave and her white master, he will always be bound, it seems, to a brutal history and the stigma of colour. All have stories to tell and secrets to hide. Like the sketches of people which Deeti finger-paints as keepsakes for her "shrine", their narratives tease the mind with discontinuities and suggestiveness; and, as with Ah Fatt the opium addict's descriptions of Canton, his old home, "the genius... lay in their elisions".

With the colourful characters, another interesting aspect of the storys is the clash and mingling of languages." Bhojpuri, Bengali, Laskari, Anglo-Indian words and phrases, and a larghge spectrum of English including the Baboo Nob Kissin, Burnham's accountant, create a vivid sense of living voices as well as the linguistic resourcefulness of people in diaspora." The "motley tongue" is as much a part of the cultural scene at the lower reaches of the Ganges, and of the multi-layered history of the subcontinent, as the collision of peoples on one of the great rivers of the world. 

the characters harves a great need for change yet remain somewhat bound for failure

Eidia. Ghosh. 4.20

The Opium Factory:

(I believe in my book, I am about 2 pages behind, so the passage numbering will be slightly off.)

"Deeti was about to step in when she glanced over the sirdar's shoulder, into the weighing shed: the sight made her pull back, with a sudden start of apprehension. Such was the length of the shed that the door at the far end looked like a distant pinprick of light, in between, arrayed along the floor, stood many gigantic pairs of scales, dwarfing the men around them; beside each set of scales sat a tall hatted Englishman, overseeing teams of weighmen and accountants. Buzzing busily around the sahibs were turbaned muharirs bearing armloads of paper and dhoti-clad serishtas with thick registers; swarming everywhere were gangs of bare-bodied boys carrying improbably tall stacks of poppy-flower wrappers." 

In this passage, there is a prominent dynamic of hierarchal elements, both animate and inanimate. The description of the scales, and the grandeur of the size, greatly seems to contrast the human form of the workers around them. Utilizing words such as "dwarfs" to describe the workers, and "gigantic" to describe the scales, Ghosh allots a greater power to the inanimate object. Along with the scales, which loom and tower over the workers, the animate, and the human capable of being an equivalent to the power of the scales is the "tall hatted Englishman". With this conjunction, Ghosh clearly presents the Englishman as the imperial being. Another key element to this power dynamic are the bare-bodied boys. Carrying the tall stacks of wrappers, these boys are providing the opium a sense of being covered, shelter and protection. The opium will be covered, but there boys are not, they lack clothing, they lack a sense of closure. 

The stacks of wrappers, the scales, and the hatted Englishman all enact a role of emphasizing the distribution of power. In this case, politically, it can be assumed that the lives of the Indians, during that specific time period were greatly dependent  upon the supervision of the English, presenting an aspect of English imperialism, and constant need to dictate and supervise the work and lives of the Indians. 

In addition to these details of the factory, there is the description of the shed, the length and darkness, and the tiny prick of light at the end. Perhaps, metaphorically, this imagery serves as a harbinger for Deeti. It can serve as a parallel to her life, the darkness of her marriage, the poverty of her household, and the degradation of her purity via rape; nonetheless, the prick of light can be emblematic of her forthcoming happiness and improvement upon her current situation. 

Jason-Ghosh-4/20

            Zachary’s character seems to be defined by the projections of other characters’ needs and beliefs. In almost all, if not every, interaction between Zachary and another character, Zachary transforms into that character’s ideal. To me, examples of this were most clear during Neel’s dinner when he appraises Zachary’s character as having a sort of inherent nobility. In Zachary’s seemingly bizarre encounter with Baboo Nob Kissin, the gomusta sees him as an incarnation of Krishna. Other characters, like Serang Ali, see Zachary’s malleability in more objective terms. The Lascar sees Zachary’s “potential” almost like a dirty penny that needs cleaning. Burnham seems to be the most wary of Zachary; perhaps it’s a reflection of his business-like manner. He (Burnham) almost tests Zachary to see whether he’ll go along with what would be required of him as a higher-ranking member of the Ibis’s crew.

            In each interaction, Zachary is never particularly concerned of asserting himself. So much so, it’s unclear whether there is a “himself” within Zachary. Because of this Zachary’s character seems almost unrealistic, since he functions as a mirror to all other characters. Similarly, Zachary’s “function” casts a sort of implausibility on all other characters. The moment he and Paulette see each other, he becomes her “beau,” seemingly without a thought and at moment when he sees her in a potentially compromising position. Obviously, this instance, in the ships holding chambers, shows Zachary as having no ulterior motive. He is not conniving. Though there’s something bizarre in that fact. Zachary seems too good. And, similarly, Burnham seems too “bad.”

Despite, the mixing of identities, cultures, and languages that so many characters exhibit, they each seem to still be, at least to up to this point in the story, very obviously, clearly, and almost simplistically split down lines connoting either good or evil.

I guess that must be the case for this book, and the world outside the book, if it intends to “prove” that injustices are, in fact, wrong. Still, there seems to be something jarring in the world the story presents. It seems that if there is so much co-mingling going on, how are good and evil somehow immune to these same forces?

karol- Ghosh- 04/20/11

When I read this section it felt like it was a turning point in the book. Burnham's plausibility is not in question, in my opinion, because Ghosh touches on an attitude that is very real. It runs away from the author. Burnham seems to have his own agency. Beyond the Judeo-Christian justification for cruelty that masks the need for cheap labor lies a psychodynamic subtext for diatribe on free will from hegemonic middle management to a product of imperialism. Burnham gives the classical 'white man's burden' rubric. This we've heard before. But given the context of Ben Burnham's history it reveals that his opinion has some element of sexual sadism. The quartermaster, on traditional vessels, was responsible for dispersing punishments. Essentially, Burnham feels like he needs to save others from themselves (or at least that's what he tells himself) because he has a history of not being able to control himself (tried to rape a boy, I think). Rape is rarely about sex. He believes that human nature is basically evil because he believes that he is (or at least that his desire is). I have to ask whether this discussion should still be going on. This is Rousseau and Voltaire, again, 'is human nature good?' or 'is human nature evil?' Is this still a valid question?

Rachel - Ghosh, 4/20

I will have to agree with Will's stance, regarding how Ghosh writes views free will.  In Sea of Poppies, the characters are products of their circumstances.  They aren't much like Dicken's protagonists, who struggle against their difficult circumstances and go from rags-to-riches; rather, Ghosh's characters are trapped in a situation that they must navigate, but with limited prospects for happiness.  Though I'm not too far into the book yet, I don't get the sense that it will end well for any of the characters.

Take the child-bride Deeti, for example.  She is impregnated by a man and gives birth.  It is not because she want a child, but because her in-laws wanted one.  (At least, we assume it is the brother-in-law who did the deed.)  She is now living with a daughter because of what other people - most likely men - decided.  She does not even exercise the right to control her own reproduction.  Pro-choice, anyone?

This thematic thread continues on page 112.  We see pretty clearly portrays how Ghosh portrays free will within the context of Western capitalism and its Smithian economics:

"Mr. Burhnam blew out a mouthful of smoke.  'Let me be hoenst with you,' he said quietly.  'The truth is you have no option.  Your debts to my company would not be covered even by the sale of the estate.  I am afraid I cannot wait much longer.'

'Mr. Burnham,' said Neel firmly, 'you must forget about your proposal.  I will sell my houses, I will sell the budgerow, I will sell everything I can - but I cannot part with the Raskhali lands.  I would rather declare bankruptcy than hand over my zemidary to you.'

'I see,' said Mr. Burnham, not unpleasantly.  'Am I to take that as your final word?'

Neel nodded.  'Yes.'

'Well then,' said Mr. Burnham, staring at the glowing tip of his cheroot.   'Let it be understood then, that whatever happens, you have only yourself to blame.'

The fat, white businessman blowing on his cigar/cigarette/cheroot/pipe/whatever is an image I've seen in Disney movies (Oliver and Company), cartoons (Rocko's Modern Life), countless books, and graphic novels.  In 2011, it is an image that has stuck in the cultural consciousness.  On Ghosh's part, I don't think Mr. Burham is a particularly innovate character...yet he's he's still a striking one.  I think that's part of the author's charm.  He takes tropes (the noble freed slave, the innocent village woman, the corrupt business man), and really carves them out in minute detail.  Plus the voyage is pretty fun.

Every novel needs a good voyage.  Even if you don't have much free will to decide where it takes you.

Will - 4/20 - Ghosh

Mr Burnham is a chilling character.  He is genial and well-mannered, but underneath he has a poisonous view of the world.  After Zachary learns that the Ibis will be used to transport "coolies" to Mauritius, he is surprised and asks if the British haven't outlawed the slave trade?  Burnham responds with:  "It's sad but true that there are many who'll stop at nothing to halt the march of human freedom" (73).  The march of human freedom is led by white people who civilize the lesser races.  So an African is better off as a slave in the south than living in barbaric Africa.  Deeti and her husband are better off working for an English corporation than living a more traditional life.  The Chinese are better off beholden to the British Empire than just exporting tea and silk.  This type of racism is believable obviously.  During the time of this novel in the U.S. people like John Calhoun were declaring slavery a "positive good."  As an Englishman Burnham's support for American slavery is a little strange.  But it could be explained by the fact that American slavery helps him economically by providing a suitable ship, and the economic power of the U.S. is nowhere near that of the British Empire, so it's non-threatening.

Zachary is uncomfortable with this type of rhetoric, but he doesn't question his employer, because "it was not his place, he decided, to interrogate his employer about his business; better to concentrate on practical matters" (74).  So he defers any responsibility for the violent, exploitative system he is part of.  He's just a cog in the wheel, he doesn't have any power, he's just trying to scrape by in his own life, etc.  This is the type of rationalization that helps people sleep at night.  The system is so big that one person can't really make a difference, right?

SEA OF POPPIES: a political parable

It's becoming obvious that this book has a specific and familiar political bent, and key scenes are best read with this in mind. Although we've touched on it, the discussion between Burnham and Zachary is key to the book. You can focus on Burnham's attitude's and beliefs: is he a plausible character or an exaggerated villain? Of particular interest is Burnham's attitude towards slavery. Also, Zachary's eagerness to please. Or you can focus on Burnham's explanation of the business and the future of the boat. Also worthy of notice is Deeti's intimate encounter with the unconscious and simple-minded Kalua: what is the symbolism of this scene and Kalua's character? When Neel thinks of Burnham's approaching visit, much is explained about the relationship between the Rajas and the English businessmen. Then at the dinner scene - maybe the most important in the book theme-wise - we learn more about Burnham's philosophy. Discuss the political implications of his arguments about free trade and opium. What kind of character is Neel - as seen in the dinner scene with Burnham and Doughty? How is he different from his father? Surely, he, too, is an "oppressor" of sorts, since he is in the position of a fedual lord. So, how does he fit into the morality of the book? The relationship of Dobi and Paulette must remind us of other relationships in other books. Also, to back up a bit, the description of the opium factory when Deeti goes there has strong political implications. Pick any of these things for your post. Are the characters essentially helpless, or are they more like Dickens characters: striving in spite of great odds and powerful forces? Is this closer to the traditional novel? Which characters seem to be the scheming puppet masters who make things happen? Is it more the powerful men or those associated with the laboring classes?

Hannah-Ghosh-04/17

iii) Languages: the mix of accents and dialects and manners of speech is one of the most immediately striking aspects of the book: comment on this and connect it to the "language wars" in other books of the S. Asian diaspora.

Ghosh's use of language is interesting and very different, but similar in some ways, from other South Asian writers we have come across. As I began reading Sea of Poppies, I felt as if Ghosh was in tune with a writer from the 19th century. "He was not quite the novice now that he had been at the start of the voyage, but nor was he equal to his new responsibilities... to spread word of a hell-afloat with pinch-gut pay... the only seamen who would venture on her decks were lascars" (13). Ghosh doesn't just come out and say what he wants to say. He's very descriptive, especially when the Ibis is introduced. Ghosh's descriptions set up what is going on internally with the characters, especially in the first half of the assigned reading, but also what's happening externally, before the Opium Wars. Simply, the author doesn't make it easy to read this novel without thinking over each passage. He uses particular words, as if he took the time to choose one that would fit into the scene.

Like Rushdie (and somwhat Roy), Ghosh uses the Indian language more freely than Naipaul. He even provides a glossary in the back of the book. This allows the reader to become emerged in each word Ghosh chooses to use, whether it is a proper term or slang. Naipaul seems to stick to a traditional, Western way of writing.

Jane-Ghosh-4/17/11

"One of them, who called herself Madagascar Rose, was as pretty a girl as he had ever seen, with flowers behind her ears and painted red lips: dearly he would have loved, after ten months on a ship, to be dragged behind her door, to stick his nose between her jasmined breasts and to run his tongue over her vanilla lips- but suddenly there was Serang Ali, in his sarong, blocking the lane, his thin acquiline face compressed into a dagger of disapproval. At the sight of him, the Rose of Madagascar wilted and was gone" (Ghosh, 22).

This passage was particularly striking to me as one of the most vivid, which is strange since there is no dialogue. Ghosh is brilliant in his use of creating visceral imagery that do appear to have symbolic significance. There are also many moments that are laden with animism- similar to Roy. One passage that does this is the scene wherein Serang Ali spits beetle (another motif that seems to represent masculine virility) into the ocean and sharks begin to thrash below thinking it is blood. The scene- coupled with Ghosh's laconic musings from the perspective of Zachary- is extremely evocative and is virtually alive, which, in fact, Ghosh writes.

Joseph-Ghosh-4/18

Ghosh's prose is full of extreme higbrow/lowbrow fluctuations in language. On pg. 14 for example Ghosh writes, "Two feathery strands of moustache drooped down to his chin, framing a mouth that was constantly in motion, its edges stained a bright, livid red: It was as if he were forever smacking his lips after drinking from the opened veins of a mare, like some bloodthirsty Tartar of the steppes." Not long after, Ghosh uses language like "the mate was a gone-goose" and 'not going to spill no colour on my table, even if it's just a pale shade of yaller.' The alteration between high and low language is justified by the prevalance of 'lascars'(who, contrary to Zach's belief, have nothing in common but the Indian Ocean). Tellingly, Ghosh comments that they "had to be taken all together or not at all."

Another thing I noticed was the rather strange way that Ghosh chooses to represent reality. Ghosh writes "A few living relatives were represented too, but only by diagrammatic images drawn on mango leaves--Deeti believed it to be bad luck to attempt overly realistic portraits of those who had yet to leave this earth." Later Ghosh writes, "Deeti picked up a green mango leaf, dipped a fingertip in a container of bright red sindoor and drew, with a few strokes, two wing-like triangles hanging suspended above a long curved shape that ended in a hooked bill. It could have been a bird in flight but Kanbutri recognized it at once for what it was--an image of a two-masted vessel with unfurled sails. She was amazed that her mother had drawn the image as though she were representing a living being." The Ibis seems to be treated as if it contained its own spirit, so why does Ghosh celebrate Deeti's accuracy in painting a realistic portrait? Is this not bad luck?

Rachel - Ghosh, 4/18

Yes!  Amitav Ghosh is definitely sets up a political critique from the beginning of Sea of Poppies.  We can see this from the very beginning of the book, on page 11, when the Ibis is first described:




"To his eyes there was something unusually graceful about the Ibis's yacht-like rigging, with her sails aligned along her length rather than across the line of her hull.  He could see why, with her main and headsails standing fair, she might put someone in mind of a white-winged bird in flight...
One thing Zachary did know about the Ibis was that she had been built to serve as a 'blackbirder', for transporting slaves.  This, indeed, was the reason why she had changed hands: in the years since the formal abolition of the slave trade, British and American naval vessels had taken to patrolling the West African coast in growing numbers, and the Ibis was not swift enough to be confident of outrunning them.  As with many another slave-ship, the schooner's new owner had acquired her with an eye to fitting her for a different trade: the export of opium.  In this instance the purchasers were a firm called Burnham Bros., a shipping any and trading house that had extensive interests in India and China."




Ghosh, like Roy and Rushdie, is probably a left-leaning guy.  In the above passage, he reminds readers that the ships built to transport slaves to Europe and the Americas was, historically, an economic enterprise...and a profitable one, at that.  Not only did American agriculture depend on the slave trade, but also sailors, ship builders, auction house owners, and slave hunters.  What is now universally regarded as one of humanity's darkest enterprises was once regarded as "simple economics."  Today, many other commercial enterprises are the same way.  (Some things that fuel war in Africa today: cassiterite, wolframite, **coltan, and gold."  Things that rely on slave labor in Africa: coffee, cacao nibs, chocolate.  Not too long ago: rubber.)


So the Ibis, which is associated with a white bird, has a dark past as a "blackbirder."  It was involved in a social system that Caucasians designed to better serve "their civilization," at the huge expense of Africans.  This is meant to portray the innate disregard "business" - especially the modern corporation - has for people...especially poor people, who are not of European descent. 


Also, an interesting note to just consider...ibises aren't really white.  They have red masks/beaks, and also come in black-and-white variations, as well as scarlet.  (Anyone remember that story "The Scarlet Ibis?")


 Maybe this is Ghosh commenting on the false perceptions most people have of "racial purity."  Best way to troll a white supremacist: send them to any geneticist and have them explain what "genetic admixture" is.


Epic fail.

karol- Ghosh- 04/18/11

ii) the stories in the book take place in various locales: aboard a boat, in a marital residence, etc. Initially, the book lacks a stable setting. Why does the author set up his various stories the way he does?

The instability of space as a vehicle for narrative and plot requires the cliché use of the ship as metaphorical for society. There is a certain demfamiliarization that covers the deck of Ghosh's ship because it is no longer the vessel of the colonial but  has "...changed hands: in the years since the formal abolition of the slave trade…" (16)The transition between dry land and the instability of open water is smooth because both are presented magically (in opiated haze) by the author. So far I understand the relationship with space to represent the negotiation of power between the family and society. "The child could not understand why a ship should find a place in the family pantheon." (14)Deeti's relationship with space is just as uncertain as the sailors because she is being drugged and raped. (39)Her mother-in-law acts as the ship's captain of the family that she has married into, creating further parallel.

Jason-Ghosh-4/18

            Most if not all of the stories we’ve read have dealt with the idea of fate as inevitable, particularly as it ties to caste. The class one is born into generally seems to dictate the contents and circumstances of one’s life. It seems no matter what “ups and downs” there are, (social mobility, accumulation of wealth) there isn’t really any way of altering one’s “level” during a single lifetime. So far in Sea of Poppies, characters like Zachary, Paulette, and Neel (the Raja’s son), have all experienced some kind of modification of their original status. This alteration includes most clearly, a mixing of Eastern and Western cultures, so much so that it seems none of these characters are explicitly part of one sphere/world or another. They each have an outcast quality to them, though they also are very much “involved.”

Zachary is described as rising through the ranks from a position as ship-repairman, not knowing anything about sailing, to being second-mate as well as being perceived by others around him as having a kind of inherent nobility. Paulette seems to have the background of a French aristocrat but is more at home wearing saris despite being taken in by one of the most English families (the Burnhams) in the area. Neel’s position as a Raja seems to be slipping away from him, something that seems to define much of his identity.

            It’s possible that these characters are just representations of the same idea found in the other stories we’ve read: that one’s fate is inescapable and the changes one experiences are just expressions of that same fate. Either way, each of these characters seem to be slaves to the practice of Free Trade (what Burnham believes fervently in and compares to the “inherent” goodness of Christianity) despite their changing circumstances and seemingly mixed identities.

AMITAV GHOSH'S 2008 EPIC - SEA OF POPPIES: the beginning

You should build your post on the first reading from Sea of Poppies on the topic that interests you as a term paper idea. However, here are some suggestions: i) focus on the book's characters as "types" with significance: an orphan, a disenchanted wife, a former slave... why does Ghosh put these figures in his mix? ii) the stories in the book take place in various locales: aboard a boat, in a marital residence, etc. Initially, the book lacks a stable setting. Why does the author set up his various stories the way he does? iii) Languages: the mix of accents and dialects and manners of speech is one of the most immediately striking aspects of the book: comment on this and connect it to the "language wars" in other books of the S. Asian diaspora; iv) like Bharati Mukherjee, Ghosh is a Calcutta-born Bengali who lives in New York: do you sense a similar project or point of view in this book and Mukherjee's "Management of Grief"? v) comment on Ghosh's storytelling style, the exposition, the authorial voice: compare with other authors; does the author appear to have a voice or a point of view? vi) comment on the story itself: what sustains the reader's interest in this book as compared  with "classic" authors of the S. Asian diaspora like Naipaul or Rushdie? vii) do you, at this early stage of the book, discern a political perspective or project? viii) Sea of Poppies is an historical novel; how does this make it fundamentally different as a statement about the S. Asian diasporic experience? ix) the book is full of images and descriptions, perhaps more so than anything we've read: pick some choice passages and comment on Ghosh's use of imagery, specific things, etc. Do objects in his world have symbolic significance? x) who is a hero and a villain in the book so far? pick an example of each and a passage illustrating his or her character (i.e. one hero, one villain).

Michael Rushdie

In mukherjee's  "the management of grief"  i get a sense of attempting to preserve a cultural identity but failing in the mists of western momentum. For instance when the girl says shed rather go to wonderland, or the boy is lost in his walkmen. It seems  the only reminder of india remaining is left in the brittle sounds of tea and teapots. the story maintains its grounding by holding on this thread of keeping hope, especially from the standpoint of a mother, but can be related to maintaining hope in other aspects than death. the narrators tone is also quite different than the others weve dealt with. The character is less fantastical yet keeps almost two separate standpoints in her narration. the things she does and says and the things she would like to. It also shows the effect of returning to culture after leaving and the alienating aspect of such a reality.

Jason-Mukherjee-4/13

I thought the family in The Management of Grief was one of the most, if not the most, Western-seeming depiction of any Indian character(s) we’ve read so far. Because of this the emphasis on “particularly Indian” things, like the sound of a tea pot being filled with water, stood out, as the narrator described them, as things that were almost “other” even though they were, in some ways, really the things that were most familiar.

            I had a hard time figuring out what role Hope played in the story. It seems like, in the context of other stories and novels we’ve read, Hope is something could be seen as misguided and maybe even particularly Western. Either way, it seems to serve as both a lifesaver to some, like Dr. Ranganathan who the narrator sees as having some insight into the possibilities of life because he is an electrical engineer, and a “millstone” for others, like the husband and wife that Judith Templeton takes the narrator to visit. It’s hard to say whether Hope is shown as being particularly Western or Eastern. It seems Hope is pretty universal, though the circumstances in which it is grasped, and the background of the “graspee” seem to have a lot to do with how a particular hopeful person is affected later in life by it.

            Much of the story seems to have to do with accepting the fact that “God” takes things and gives them. To me, in the context of what we’ve read, that seems like a kind of Westernification of the Eastern way of seeing the world, which is that things are beyond the control of the individual. Fate more or less determines when things come and when they go. This idea is then related to the narrator’s grieving period, and probably all grieving periods in the story, and represented by the visions she has of her family deciding for her when she can move on and continue her life.

            A variation of this idea comes up during the narrator’s talk with the husband and wife. The narrator says that her husband and son “are not coming back.” The old woman says, “who’s to say? Man alone does not decide these things.” They’re ultimately “holding out” in the hopes that they family might resurface some how. They’re not willing to accept their fate. Though, in the end it seems the narrator’s acceptance of her fate actually provides the possibility for a hopeful future.

Anna-April 13- Mukherjee

Themes I saw in The Management of Greif as related to S.S. Diaspara:
1. Family
2. Customs, pg. 93, "I was too much the well brought up woman. I was so well brought up I never felt comfortable calling my husband by his first name."
3. Americana talk words : Mcdonalds, Walkman, Wonderland
4. Food motifs
5. mysthical element "swami in Toronto" Toronto making it more interesting..(like a visiting guru with a website)

Eidia.Mukherjee.4.13

In Bharati Mukherjee's "The Management of Grief", there is a strong sense of cultural preservation. This theme is prominent in many ways. Varying from elements such as the saris worn by the women, in an Western country such as Canada, even Ireland, the Indian notion of retaining "hope", and the concepts of remarrying...given the right circumstances...all of these components are branches of a somewhat traditional Indian society. Along with these details, there is the constant references to Indian hospitality; specifically, in the case of constantly preparing tea/chai for visitors. An example of this tradition, continued even in the western backdrop:
       "I hear the most familiar sound of an Indian home, tap water hitting and filling a teapot." (pg. 105).

While Mukherjee implements these anticipated Indian themes, there is something strikingly different in her approach to Indian people as part of an Indian community. There is a strong sense of detachment, present most densely within Shaila's insistence upon not interfering with the lives of the Sikh couple:
      "They are Sikh. They will not open up to a Hindu woman." (pg.104)
Despite sharing a common grief, or rather, unified through one- in terms of being impacted with the sense and reality of loss, there is still a political difference being suggested by the author. This brings forth a dimension, a multiplicity of layers, the Indians abroad, unified by the reality of diaspora, and the divided sense of political differences within this one culture (Hindu vs Sikhs).

Karol -Mukherjee -04/13

Richard Rodriguez in his book Brown makes reference to the fact that only in the U.S. (and maybe Canada) do otherwise unconnected ethnographic groups connect by calling themselves Asians or Pacific Islanders or maybe East Asians. I believe in Baby steps, unfortunately, with every step closer to people considering themselves earthlings something is lost. This story made me sad. The interruption of hope by duty and duty by hope is a terrifyingly tautologous. It folds over and over itself like ripples in certain body of water in Ireland where our protagonist finds herself looking into the beyond. The interruption of individual hope by Judith Templeton, who groups the suffering of those she is trying to help with a repetitive use of the word "some," is "partially" from the "multiculturalism" wing of the provincial government. (94-95) As a South Asian story there is a strong emphasis on presenting the characters as educated middle class elite and a strong preference to Europeans over North Americans (not that there's anything wrong with that). Literature does in many ways teach the middle class how to brush their teeth (So says Updike). In a story about grief it would be too obvious to mention the piece has tones of escapism but hope is not an illusion without utility. Mukherjee's poetic styling turns several scenes into absolute works of art. The image of Kusum's 'sari ballooning in the wind' is especially vivid and indicative of the writers affiliation.

Will - Mukherjee - 4/13

The tone of this story is more mythic than others we have read.  Rushdie uses elements of myth, but always self-consciously or winkingly.  At least the ending of this story is mythic with Shaila the narrator beginning a quest after hearing the voices of her family:  "I do not know which direction I will take.  I dropped the package on a park bench and started walking" (108).  The whole story seems to happen for the reader through a haze of grief, and maybe the mythic tone is suitable because grief is anti-rational.

This story is also notable because it shows alienation from family life in a way other stories we've read never do.  Shaila's husband and children die, and upon returning home her mother offers no consolation.  Shaila does however find some support from the larger Indian community living in Canada, like Dr. Ranganathan.  So unlike the claustrophobic world of a single family, like in Rushdie and Roy, Mukherjee portrays a single woman among a community.  At the same time, Shaila doesn't really feel a connection with most of those people besides the fact that they share a homeland or lost family-members in a crash.  Shaila is more alone than other protagonists we've read about.

Joseph-Mukherjee-4/13

Notions of cultural limbo run throughout Mukherjee's 'The Managment of Grief'. I found the most immediately striking dissonance to be that between Judith and the rest of the community. Judith is earnest, but she cannot bridge the essential gap between cultures. Most strikingly, she states ""We have interpreters, but we don't always have the human touch, or maybe the right human touch." Just writing "We don't always have the human touch" would have gotten across the message. However, Mukherjee adds or maybe the right human touch to support her most powerful proposition: Grief is universal, but the treatment of it cannot escape age old cultural divisions.

The story is full of twisting double bind sentences such as the one above:


*Pam, a heavily westernized girl, expresses her desire to waitress at McDonald's. She comments "If it's a choice between Bombay and Wonderland, I'm picking Wonderland."(It's particularly ironic that McDonald's is seen as the Wonderland, given that 'do you want fries with that?' has become the joke towards those who are at the lowest rung of the capitalist dream).  She ultimately ends up giving make-up advice to Indian and Oriental girls in Vancouver.

*Shaila's freedom from the traditional roles of women in Indian culture is only achieved through a kind of stained branding: Due to the fact that she is a widow, she will not be pressured or desired in regards to a new marriage.

*The doubling that exists in the meeting between Shaila and the Sikh family. A shared grief is expressed(at one point the narrator remarks that the grieving are now 'relatives'), but communication is irrevocably limited. Mukherjee writes, "I try to explain to them that the government wishes to give money, not take." He raises his hand. "Let them take", he says. "We are accustomed to that. That is no problem." The couple only hear the take fragment of Shaila's dialogue. Moreover, the only way that Judith knows how to cope is to give,give,give. She needs to be constantly working in order to cope, and this contrasts with the coping responses of the families. In actuality, Judith's attempts to manage the grief of others only serve to reinforce the isolation of her own response.

*The stoic narration justifies the appearance of mystical forces. It's introduction is unapologetic. The narrator's decision to return to Canada(and continue with her life) is motivated by a mystical appearance of her deceased husband.

Bharati Mukherjee

Post on Bharati Mukherjee's story in the same manner as you did on Ondaatje, looking for thematic or stylistic traits of South Asian contemporary fiction.

Jason-Ondaatje-4/11

In The Passions of Lalla, Lalla possess an everlasting sense of youth or at least a youthful approach to living her life. After marrying and having children at an early age, its as if she seems to feel that she’s done with “adultly” concerns and focus primarily on what she wants for herself. In this sense, it’s interesting that she is particularly generous to children. Maybe it’s because she thinks she owes them something, for not being as adult as maybe she feels she should, or because she sees herself as having something, maybe a world view, in common with them. Though her concerns seem to be frivolous, she seems to be aware of being able to enjoy things fully for “that one moment” where pleasure is most complete and presumably most satisfying.

            Either way, these characteristics seem similar to a few features of Roy’s God of Small Things. The focus on a perspective that is so child-centric and a figure who provides generously for those in need (a Jesus-like figure), are all pieces held in common with Roy’s work and this one (maybe even with Rushdie’s).

            Lalla seems to not want to be attached to anything physically, not even her own grandchildren when they want to hold her hand. Maybe this is a representation of a child-like naiveness in that she regards herself as being a whole being separate from all others, one who’s capable of making decisions for themselves according to their desires. Her love for drinking may be what perpetuates this belief but ultimately she’s dragged away by a flood, containing all types of things and objects, to her death. She’s basically mixed back into “everything else.”

            This last bit seems to be particularly relevant to South Asian lit. In this story, “Westernness” and “Easternness” seem to be somewhat blurred. But in the end it seems that the Eastern side, the one that sees the world as being infinitely connected with all other things, claims all others and subsumes them not matter the circumstances or opposing beliefs held by those who are subsumed.

Jane-Ondaatje- 4/10/11

"There is no information about Lalla growing up. Perhaps she was a shy child, for those who are magical break from silent structures after years of chrysalis" (Ondaatje, 157).


In terms of character study a found a few parallels between Lalla and other women in the books we've read so far. This particular passage reminds me a great deal of Rahel in The God of Small Things. Both are playful and indifferent- two things that seem to distinguish them socially and cause them to be viewed as the exotic other, in Rahel's case this is especially true in her marriage to Larry Mccaslin. I know I've mentioned it before, but I think it is interesting that all novels and stories seem to have the similar figure of the coquettish wife. Lalla's wit and charm harkens back to Lahiri's short story, This Blessed House. 

Karol -Ondaatje -04/10

I think what is clutch to Ondaatje's story is that Lalla married into insanity and took it as her own, became a Dickman. Her love affairs all seem to be acts of becoming as is her relationship with Catholicism. "Shortly after Willie began the dairy he fell seriously ill. Lalla, unable to cope, would run into the neighbours' homes, pound on their beds, and promise to become a catholic if Willie recovered." (158) Her promises (or should I say her lies) are also dormant acts of becoming that act as gestures signifying what she would become if she could ever get past herself. Her knowledge of becoming is limited to the costume she wears to play a role, which leaves her at the end trying to make a spectacle of her death in order to become in death what she couldn't become in life. Haha. I just got it.

Will - Ondaatje - 4/11

Similar to characters in Midnight's Children like Aadam Aziz, Ondaatje's grandmother Lalla doesn't change or progress throughout the story.  She doesn't learn a lesson by overcoming early difficulty in her life.  Another similarity with Rushdie's characters is that Lalla goes through periods of peculiar obsession such as her obsession with fashioning ornate dresses for her daughter to wear:  "The crowning achievement was my mother's appearance at the Galle Face Dance as a lobster" (161).  If anything Lalla becomes more herself as she gets older.  After her husband dies and her children grown up, she is described as "in her prime" (165).  She has to sell her house and after that "She was free to move wherever she wished, to do whatever she wanted" (164).

At the same time Lalla's life is touched by the fantastic:  "My Grandmother died in the blue arms of a jacaranda tree.  She could read thunder" (157).  She reads her death in thunder one day, and she dies when she is carried away in a flood after going on a bender with her brother.  Apparently they were so drunk they didn't notice the monsoon:  "For two days and nights they had been oblivious to the amount of destruction outside their home" (169).  There is also a moment when similar to Saleem in M.C. Lalla's life is intertwined with the life of the nation when Ondaatje writes, "During the forties she moved with the rest of the country towards Independence and the 20th century.  Her freedom accelerated" (167).

Ondaatje's style is pretty interesting.  He's not bombastic like Rushdie or dreamy like Roy.  But every once in a while he writes something beautiful and strange like "She gazed and listened but there seemed to be no victim or parabola end beyond her" (168) or "What was moving was rushing flood" (169).  In that way he isn't stoic like Naipaul.

Hannah-Ondaatje-4/11

"The Passion of Lalla" by Ondaatje echoes other authors we have read in terms of religion and superstition. "Shortly after Willie began the dairy he fell seriously ill. Lalla, unable to cope, would run into neighbours' homes, pound on their beds, and promise to become a Catholic if Willie recovered" (158). Catholicism is often representative of "Western" culture, so in this case, Lalla saw it as a chance to get what she wanted from it. On page 162-163, she is seen "flirting" with Catholicism, but decides to leave the church when her brother abandons his fiance (the priest's sister). Mentioned before in class, people often pick and choose what they need from religion and culture. Lalla seems very attached to nature and helping others, but grabs what she can from a non-traditional Eastern culture, such as stealing. But Lalla is a different character, still keeping in touch with everybody, even her ex-fiance and his wife. She dressed her daughter in crazy costumes and hid a murderer from the police.

"A good many of my relatives from this generation seem to have tormented the church sexually. Italian monks who became enamored of certain aunts would return to Italy to discard their robes and return to find the women already married" (163). This was the opposite for Baby Kochamma in Roy's novel because she ended up pining for Father Mulligan and ending up bitter and alone.

"A year later the husband lapsed into total silence and the only sounds which could be heard from his quarters were barkings and later on the cluck on hens. It is believed he was the victim of someone's charm" (158-159). Rene's husband ends up shooting himself and before his death, he acts like an animal. This reminds me of Naipaul and his criticisms of superstition. As if believing his insanity to be because of someone's charm isn't logical at all. But Ondaatje's use of language is very detailed and not slow at all. Naipaul's style of writing was very dry, but Ondaatje uses so many details in each paragraph that it flows  along with the story.

Like Rushdie (and maybe Roy), Lalla's life and her journey to her death was so outlined and elaborate, but once she met her death, that was it. "... and she hit it and was dead" (170). No other explanations. But I guess that's how death really is to some people. You die and that's that.

Rachel - Mukherjee, 4/13

Perhaps the theme I’ve chosen to write about it too easy.  Nonetheless, I think it’s germane to the course.

South Asian writers respond to India’s struggle to adapt in a “modern” – or perhaps simply “Westernized” – world.  Where does cultural tradition fit in, when wants to attend an American university and become a doctor?  Who wants to wear traditional saris when everyone around you is in Levi’s jeans and American Eagle tee-shirts?

On page 101, we see this theme directly commented on.  Mukherjee seems to be directly addressing:

“The zamindar’s daughter kept stubborn faith in Vedic rituals; my parents rebelled.  I am trapped between two modes of knowledge.  At thirty-six, I am too old to start over and too young to give up.  Like my husband’s spirit, I flutter between two words.”

Since her husband died in India Air Flight 182, over the Atlantic Ocean, he was literally between the Eastern and Western worlds when he died.  Where did his true identity lie?  And where is his final resting place to be?

Note how the first sentence is broken into two halves via semicolon.  The next sentence is declarative, unbroken.  The next two are broken into two halves by commas.  Personally, I think this is no coincidence.  Mukherjee did this as an intentional, rhetorical choice, and it works.  It makes the rhythm of the prose match the feelings the Mrs. Bhave expresses.

This same sense of being caught in-between is also explored in “This Blessed House.”  The protagonist struggles with his wife’s Westernized eccentricities and freedoms.  He wonders if it might have been better to marry a girl who was actually born and raised in India.  The traditional Indian view of gender is also incorporated into "Bahadur" on page 102:

"Already the widowers among us are being shown new bride candidates.  They cannot resist the call of custom, the authority of their parents and older brothers.  They must marry; it is the duty of a man to look after a wife.  The new wives will be young widows with children, destitute but of good family.  They will make loving wives, but the men will shun them."

So where does his new life in the bourgeois suburbs of North America fit in?  Especially one in which women are expected to be college-educated and financially independent?

I’m not sure…but I think I may try to answer that very question in my final paper.

Rachel - Ondaatje, 4/11

Lalla is antithetical to "Eastern values."  By seeing how she does not conform to Indian ideas of what a person should be, we gain insight into what qualities the local cultures deems important.

In most Eastern countries - from India, to Japan, to Cambodia - the dead are venerated.  Sure, here in the West we have grave stones too.  America is full of ghost stories that involved Indian cemeteries being dug up, or a grave being defaced, and poltergeist activity occurring as a consequence.   But in the East it goes a step further.  There, there is a strong tradition of ancestor worship, the importance of one's family being "of good repute," and the idea that one's actions in previous lives affects one's caste.  From what I can gather, these beliefs probably came out of some hybrid "Buddhism/patriarchy/Confuscian" ideals.  Potestant Europe and America often do not assign the same weight to respect for the dead.

This makes it particularly offensive when Lalla steals flowers from graves.  On page 164, Ondaatje has her saying to her husband:

"Darling, I've just been to church and I've stolen some flowers for you.  These are from Mrs. Abeysekare's [grave], the lilies are from Mrs. Ratnayake's [grave], the agapanthus is from Violet Meedeniya and the rest are from your garden."

He goes on to describe her:

"She stole flowers compulsively, even in the owner's presence.  As she spoke with someone her straying left hand would pull up a prize rose along with the roots, all so that she could appreciate it for that one moment, gaze into it with complete pleasure, swallow its qualities whole and then hand the flower, discarding it, to the owner."

This shows that the main character 1.) has no sense of veneration or respect, 2.) cannot be trusted around delicate things, and 3.) will recklessly destroy beauty.

So Lalla is a particularly low-down character to a South Asian audience.  Between her constant lunches and bridge games, she's lazy, which solidifies her image as a "bad character."  (And most of us know, laziness = death in Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korea, etc., culture.  Statistically, students whose ancestors hail from the East are overrepresented in major colleges/universities and score highest on IQ tests and the SATs.  Do I think this is attributed to innate ability?  No.  But to the Confuscian ideal that you MUST work hard to achieve, as Kam Louie once wrote, "cultural attainment?"  (Better known as the ancient Chinese philosophy of "wen?")  Absolutely.

Lalla doesn't push herself at all.  Rather, she simply floats through life, trying to maintain her contentedness through Ajoutha card games.  (According to Ondaatje, these games take at least eight hours to complete.)  That character trait seems to be the reason why he picked her name.  "Lalla?"  Seems like a revealing choice to me.

For this week: Ondaatje & Mukherjee

I'd like to read both of these stories as providing examples of the South Asian style and outlook - in different ways.
for Mon: Michael Ondaatje, the most commercially successful author we've read, writes a character study. How does this presentation of a character and a life seem typical of storytelling that comes out of South Asian traditions? How does Lalla represent an "Eastern" life, an example of "Eastern" values? In what ways does this story echo books we've read? How does this concept of a life differ from that found in what Roy calls the "Great Novels"? As always, use examples from the story.

for Wed: Bharati Mukherjee writes an allegory of being Indian and away from home. This story of the aftermath of a tragedy, although similar in some ways to The Sweet Hereafter, aims to describe the experience of being a stranger - a Hindu - away from one's home country. It has in common with the books we've read a theme of death and the many rituals through which we try to cope with it. However, the tone is different than anything we've read, I believe. Comment on these things or whatever strikes you, but you may use these responses as an opportunity to start exploring your theme for the final essay - on South Asian Diasporic literature generally.

Anna-Roy 4/6

"Writers imagine that they cull stories from the world. I'm beginning to believe that vanity makes them think so. That it's actually the other way around. Stories cull writers from the world. Stories reveal themselves to us. The public narrative, the private narrative - they colonize us. They commission us. They insist on being told"


This combined with the quote by John Berger at the beginning of the novel, " Never again will a single story be told as though it's the only one." explains to me the structure and the circular time and Rushdie-like all encompassing narrative. 


I think the emotions and the evocative nature of the story comes from the political side of Roy eeping out through the story tellers lense. 


She is much more than just a writer which was explained in the pre-speech introduction (from the transcript) . She only has one novel- for her it is less about writing lots of novels, tan saying what needs to be said, which she is doing through screenplays and essays, and once did through a novel. I had a very different idea of the novel actually before I heard this speech, which gives it a much more political slant. The speech puts her up on a level with Naipaul and Rushdie, whereas I might have thought her more passive wrongly equating her, from her writing as a gentle poetic- this though is more interesting- more productive. But now what what can the novel mean?