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?
No comments:
Post a Comment