Anna- May 11- "We're not Jews"

I like the beat of this story and how it shows the pride of every man both from dignified and obtrusive circumstances, the ego. I like how the children mimic their elders like birds without adding content, just repeat punctuated information. How the Billy's are stand ins for Bullies. As mentioned, it is an interesting dynamic to have the insiders turn out to be more intricately both in and out, their worlds super defined but  overlapping

Jason-Kureishi-5/11

            To me the most interesting part of We’re Not Jews was the “twist” ending in which Azhar is revealed to be an “outsider” within his own culture, or at least a culture that is attributed to him by the racist society he lives in. I don’t think any of the stories we’ve read have had this exact same aspect in them. Usually it seems the characters in South Asian literature are some how more closely related to their heritage than Azhar seems to be. He doesn’t speak the language that his relatives do.

It seems the story is almost more about society’s reaction to what it perceives as “Other” and how it treats those individuals than it is about Azhar’s family or culture specifically. In this I got a sense of some kind of irony because of Azhar’s father’s attempts at being a writer, using the English language. The father seems to be trying ceaselessly to “break into” his adopted culture while for this same reason his son is tormented for being an outsider even though he (Azhar) is closer, through his mixed parentage, to the society that rejects him.

Similarly, it’s interesting that Azhar’s father can’t enter into the cultural sphere of his new country because of a language barrier while Azhar can’t really access his own heritage also because of a language barrier.

Will - Kureishi - 5/11

It was a little difficult to decipher the setting of this story at first and consequently the importance of some of the dialogue.  For example, when Azhar's mother instructs him to tell the bully, "Little Billy, you're common - common as muck!"  It doesn't make sense unless you know that Azhar's mother is a white English woman, and in the England of this story to call someone common is to say they're low class, not well born.  The irony is that for the white school children Azhar is worse than working class because he's part Pakistani, and this insult is ineffectual.  Azhar's mother is at first blind to this.  Kureishi is clearly linking the caste system of India with the class society of England.  Azhar's mother had a place in this class society, apparently higher than that of Big Billy and Little Billy, but she loses her position by marrying someone of another race.  This might elucidate the at first perplexing retort Azhar's mother comes up with, "We're not Jews."  References are made to the Holocaust, and Azhar's father links Big Billy with nazism when he mutters, "Triumph of the Bill." 
Anti-semitism was prevalent everywhere before, during, and after WWII, and in the English caste system depicted in this story Jews are outsiders, perhaps similar to untouchables or casteless people.  Azhar's mother means, "You can't treat me like that, I'm part of society too."  Her situation is particularly painful because she realizes she once had a stable position in society, but she lost caste because of her perceived misdeeds.  She is left an outsider in her community and in her own family.

michael roy

this story seems to focus a lot on the dialogue between bippin and saliri. It seems that by coming abck from america he is seen as better off than bippin, and succesful in escaping the excess weight of family tradition. Bippin's mother is a perfect example of the admiration seen towards someone from america, as she assumes that everything there is better and classier. It shows the reality in changing caste and the need to break away from family

Hannah-Roy-05/09

Sandip Roy's "Auld Lang Syne" reminds me of other short stories we have read this semester, especially since it is wholly based on conversations and how each character reacts to one another. There isn't a big event in the story line, but it is about Sunil's homecoming and his interactions with Bipin and his family members. Tea and sweets come up, as in most South Asian literature. When Sunil and Bipin were younger, they longed to move away and had hope, but reality set in and Sunil actually lived out his dreams, while Bipin had to settle. But according to Bipin, that's not necessarily a bad thing - it has to do with growing up and taking responsibility.

The concept of breaking away from tradition is also present in Roy's story since Sunil moved to America and Bipin stayed at home to take care of his family. Sunil went to the West and became more "free", while Bipin stayed in the East and is content, but not necessarily happy. But Sunil kind of longs for Bipin's life since it seems safer and more stable (family life, a son, an office job). Bipin seems to have had the choice to move to America, but stayed because his father passed away. It seems like the West is always a place in which people want to escape to, seeing it as a freer and livelier place. But that's not always the case since Sunil misses his old life.

Will - 5/9 - Roy

"This is what it comes down to, thought Sunil.  After all those years we spent growing up together, all those secrets we shared, we can find nothing safe to talk about anymore other than our jobs." (p. 385)

The beginning of this story seemed like a caricature of family life for me.  It becomes clear in the end that it really is a facade from which Sunil escaped.  Bipin has carefully hidden behind the facade of an average life.  He has a family and a well paying, boring job, a decent car.  He is safe, as Sunil says.  He didn't have to do much to get where he is, didn't take any risks or rock the boat.  Bipin and Sunil can only seem to exchange pleasantries, the mundane facts of their lives, not really connect like they could when they were young and idealistic.  Their evenings spent together as young men are very much still in their minds, as evidenced by the ending scene when the two men are alone and Bipin immediately bursts out, "I had no choice."  Clearly, when Bipin asks heatedly "Why should I torment myself needlessly about things I might have done?" he has been tormenting himself, and the question should be more like, "Why am I tormenting myself?"  The two men are dully content with their lives, which seems like a euphemism for resignation.  Bipin's wife, mother, and son only interrupt real connection between him and Sunil.  Bipin and Sunil have to act out an exchange between grown men as if for an audience.  They have a brief moment when they talk freely, and then their guard comes back up when Mala calls the men to dinner.  This story reminded me of Brokeback Mountain.

Jason-Roy-5/9

            I think the plot of Auld Lang Syne epitomizes many of the themes of South Asian literature. It’s basically the story of two friends, one of whom manages to “escape” the constraints of his country and it’s traditions through emigration. The other friend is caught up in the circumstances of his life in his country of birth. The circumstances of each of the friends mirror the ideas of being born into a certain caste, despite the sense that one of them, Sunil, has managed to “get out” based on his own efforts.

The illusion that the other friend, Bipin, seems to suffer under is that Sunil left his friends and family with some kind of intention behind his action. But because of the way the story is presented with Sunil’s visit “back home” seeming like it was just for the sake of old times and not for any larger reason, the impression I got was that Sunil’s life really is in America and has been all along while Bipin’s has remained where it began.

In one section of Sunil and Bipin’s conversation they discuss whether Sunil feels freer living in America. It seems that this perspective, of Sunil’s freedom, is only possible through Bipin’s eyes. Even though it does seem that Sunil has a “better life” and owns more expensive things than Bipin does, the measure for success and happiness they’re indirectly discussing is skewed since the interpretation of Sunil’s success is being understood by someone, Bipin, who lives in a different culture that presumably has different expectations. Bipin suffers because of this disparity in measures of success as well as (obviously) because he lost his friend.

Monday - Wednesday 5/9 + 5/11

Post on each story (Roy & Kureishi): post on Roy for Mon.; Kureishi for Wed. Comment on the fiction in any way you like: style, theme, connection to S. Asian literature etc.

paper ideas

I would like to take a shot at writing and researching on fiction eccentricity and the flight from reality in south asian fiction (are characters with strange hobbies and preoccupations reflective of a desire to avoid confronting a difficult reality?) this is obvious in rushdies midnights children but the same can be seen in all the books for instance the romantic egos of sea of poppies as we see in zacharary.






of course i do feel that the concpet of family life in south asian novels seems a bit more full. A bend in the river holds a huge undertone of escaping family ties while midnights children seems to show how all life is rooted on past family lines. Sea of poppies displays an attempt to avoid the fate of lineage and the need to do something different.
 the escape from family in the south asian novel - in many European novels family conflicts are resolved or a character sets out in search of a family. In novels of the South Asian diaspora, the characters often seem to be seeking escape from family, whether by boarding a boat or by denying family connections or traveling far from the family with no hope of ever returning. Do these novels, often misread as celebrating traditional cuture, actually offer a resounding rejection of the South Asian family structure?

Jason-Ghosh-5/4

For my term paper I want to focus on the theme of inevitability in each of the books we’ve read and how it seems to relate to a South Asian or Eastern world-view. Inevitability is more or less another word for fate and in each of the stories we’ve read fate, along with one’s hopes, desires, and willingness to change one’s fate, is an ever-present part. Fate or a sense of inevitability is also a principal piece of Buddhist and Hindu ideas and relates explicitly to Karma and caste.

In Sea of Poppies this idea of “fate” (in a broad sense) is expressed in the story’s historical setting, the ways the characters’ castes alter (along with their names), and the structure of the narrative and its focus on sensing an “impending something.” Since large portions of the novel are set aboard boats, there’s a clear implication that the events of the novel and the characters in it are all subject to nature’s (the sea’s) “will.” A particular passage on page 394 illustrates the kinds of hierarchies on aboard the Ibis. During this scene, the Captain explains that the “laws on land have no hold on the water,” and that in the face of the ship’s hierarchy “submission and obedience” are best for keeping order aboard the ship.

            There’s some irony going on in the enforcement of Man’s hierarchy aboard a ship that is under the control of nature. Essentially, there’s a “higher power” acting over everyone and everything aboard the ship that seems to go unnoticed (in some ways) some how.

Jason-Late Post for Monday 5/2

The scenes in which rumors aboard the boats that Deeti and Kalua travel on seem, to me, to imply the idea that those on the “lowest rung of the ladder” do not have access to unfiltered information. In contrast, Neel is someone who, at least in his past, had access to information and facts mostly as a result of his high caste. Because of this kind of access, Neel’s worldview is seemingly uncluttered, at least up until he loses his Raja-hood. Once Neel becomes “caste down” into the rank of a common criminal it seems that his access to “pure” information (literature, philosophy, etc.) was just a product, an illusion, of his caste. These rumors then are examples of the confusion inherent in living life as it is lived (not tucked away in a palace). Also, it seems that it takes courage to disregard these rumors, a quality that can’t necessarily be “learned” from books or extracted from ideologies. Once Neel becomes “among the lower castes,” he’s subject to the same bewildering tortures and confusions they are.

Hannah-Ghosh-05/04

I am interested in discussing family relationships and structure in South Asian literature. For now, I will focus on Salim from A Bend in the River, Amina and Saleem from Midnight's Children, Ammu from The God of Small Things and Deeti from Sea of Poppies. Salim does not identify with the African coast and runs away from his family for years by setting up shop far away. Yet he keep certain aspects of his family close by, like not rejecting the idea of marrying Nazruddin's daughter or even forming a new "family" with Shoba and Mahesh. His identity crises (ethnically Indian Muslim, but not fully African or European) clashes with his family's assumed ideals of traditionalism.

Amina married a man she loved, but that ended in divorce and she learned to love her new husband in pieces. But she ends up having an affair with her old lover. This family structure, for everybody involved, somehow ends up being really messed up (Pia doesn't get along with Mother Reverend, Hanif commits suicide, Saleem's father drinks too much, Aadam Aziz leaves in order to die peacefully, etc). Mother Reverend's eldest daughter remains unmarried for the rest of her life out of spite and rebellion. Ammu also rebelled against her parents by leaving home at 18 and getting married on her own. Trust is so scare in this family (Baby Kochamma is extremely manipulative) that the twins feel they only have each other at times (incest being an outcome of that). Deeti would rather die in flames than remarry her brother-in-law (empowerment) and forms a new familial structure on the Ibis with the other women. Obviously there are a lot of characters and components to touch upon, but I just need to sit down and sort everything out.

Joseph-Ghosh-5/4

I’m currently mulling over two essay prompts:

1. eccentricity and the flight from reality in south asian fiction (are characters with strange hobbies and preoccupations reflective of a desire to avoid confronting a difficult reality?)

The erotic pleasure that Burnham gets from being punished(I found the whole of Chapter Thirteen to be rather bizarre, in format and action), the state of witchcraft in A Bend in the River(I may also use Naipaul’s ‘The Masque of Africa’ as a companion text), the reversal of words and other word games in God of Small Things, and the many eccentric characters in Midnight’s Children.

                          or

2. Name changing/fluid identities

I am thinking of these moments, among others: Kalua and Deeti changing their names to ‘Aditi’ and ‘Maddow Colver’(pp. 277),  Mamdoo-tindal  dressing as a woman(his alter ego Ghaseeti) and his belief that none of the women could ‘match the allure of his alter ego’)(pp.350),  the ‘single Siamese soul’ in God of Small Things, and the much bigger, All-India radio soul in Midnight’s Children. I am still working on this prompt in relation to A Bend in The River.

Rachel - Ghosh, 5/4

...not to hate on Mr. Ghosh, but he has an incredibly irritating voice when he reads aloud.

ANYWAY.

Over the past two days, I've extracted a few scenes from Sea of Poppies, A Bend in the River, The God of Small Things, and Midnight's Children.  All of them focus on the subjugation of women via removal of bodily integrity, since this the theme I'm choosing to examine in South Asian literature.

A few scenes I'm looking at in particular are Deeti's rape/subsequent pregnancy (removal of reproductive choice) when Neel is examined by the prison guard (being reduced to a "womanly" state of powerlessness, not having bodily control) and Deeti's near-rape while her husband is dying.  After watching the YouTube interview, though, I think I might want to incorporate the opium production scene...not sure.  Control over being touched is definitely a "masculine" trait - not just in South Asian literature, but in all literature.

A few others I'm going to be close reading include Ammu's interaction with the police officer (when he taps her breast) from The God of Small Things, the emasculating "monkey speech" in A Bend in the River.

POPPIES: the end of the voyage

Watch the interview with Ghosh about Poppies to the right. He partly reads from the book and summarizes it, then answers questions. Then post on the novel with your term paper idea in mind. Find a quote or series of quotes that pertain to your subject and include some commentary on the passages.
for Monday: please read "Auld Lang Syne," by Sandip Roy - in the packet.
for Wednesday: "We're Not Jews," by Hanif Kureishi.

Additional term paper ideas:

1. gossip and public opinion in the south asian novel - in these books, author's depict the voice of public opinion almost as if the "people of the town" were a character in the book. How does gossip function as a social force? Does it encourage traditional behavior? How is this force distinct in the South Asian novel as opposed to something like Jane Austen?
2. innocence and education in the south asian novel - traditional, Romantic ideas (i.e. 19th century European ideas) tend to glamorize innocence and view education or civilization as a sort of corruption. Surely this idea exists in contemporary South Asian diasporic fiction, but different authors treat the notion of innocence differently. How do the major authors vary and what do they have in common? Is there a progression in their use or rejection of Romantic ideas of innocence?
3. women, sex, and rebellion in south asian fiction - although South Asian culture is frequently regarded as relatively prudish around matters of sex, writers in the diaspora often feature surprisingly assertive female characters - as well as traditional and reserved characters. What role do these sexually forward women play in the fiction? Is there adventurousness a cause of distress or trouble for themselves or others? Is it a rebellion against the strictures of family? Is it associated with western liberal ideas or with Eastern religion - which tends to associate sexuality with spirituality?
4. the persistence of suuperstition in contemporary south asian fiction
5. western liberalism (i.e. Enlightenment liberalism) in south asian fiction
6. "the gods must be crazy!" - machines and technology as a cause of conflict in south asian fiction
7. the pseudo-European Indian in south asian fiction
8. the feminized man in south asian fiction
9. eccentricity and the flight from reality in south asian fiction (are characters with strange hobbies and preoccupations reflective of a desire to avoid confronting a difficult reality?)
10. the escape from family in the south asian novel - in many European novels family conflicts are resolved or a character sets out in search of a family. In novels of the South Asian diaspora, the characters often seem to be seeking escape from family, whether by boarding a boat or by denying family connections or traveling far from the family with no hope of ever returning. Do these novels, often misread as celebrating traditional cuture, actually offer a resounding rejection of the South Asian family structure?

Anna-5/1- Ghosh

The whole book is a collage of little misunderstandings creating comedy, it seems to be the way Ghosh is amusing himself as he writes. The idea of bringing all these incredibly different characters together on one vessel is a terribly fertile ground to let them all bump and misunderstand each other. It feels like the theatre game where everyone is a different "type" or here (archetype) going to the same party. (how does a ninja turtle interact with donald trump?)

Throughout the novel, the reader remains much smarter (more informed) than the characters, who are more like puppets.

The scene that comes to mind first is when Paulette finally gets herself aboard the Ibis in her pink sari and is peering out of her sari costume/disguise at Judo and Zachary, and when Zachary goes to assist her boarding she thinks he's going to undo her disguise and she slaps him. Page 354.

Karol- Ghosh- 05/02

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.

For Neel who sees himself through lens of English values imprisonment at the hand of his lessors, "angry ape(s)," this is a reversal of fate for sure. The delousing, shaving, battery, and tattooing is only the tip of the ice berg he has no authority or hierarchy with which to orient himself. His insistence at maintaining his colonial identity through use of his adopted tongue is interrupted by "Raja-sah'b… Raja-sah'b…" in his native language by his father's loyal subject. The word "forger/alipore" and roman numerals for the year rename him as a object of the same culture he had been a subject.  

Will - Ghosh - 5/2

"What's it to me?  It wasn't for my own sake that I kept purdah - it was because you and your family wanted it.  And it means nothing now:  we have nothing to preserve and nothing to lose." (248)

When Neel's wife Malati and his son come to meet him in jail, Neel is shocked that his wife isn't covering her head with her sari.  It is surprising that Malati says she only kept her pure lifestyle because Neel wanted it.  Neel is supposedly so liberal, and he earlier in the book expressed annoyance that his wife was so prudish.  But he clearly thinks of women in only a few ways:  wife, mother, or mistress.  He doesn't like the roles to get mixed up.  For example, from his wife he expects absolute loyalty, but it didn't surprise him when Elokeshi sold him out because to him she's mostly just a body.  Malati seems much smarter than Neel in this scene because she immediately realizes that keeping "pure" is ridiculous when her family's social station has been revealed as arbitrary.  All social positions are revealed as arbitrary and mutable in this novel:  Neel's royalty, Paulette's status as "European", Zachary's race, Nob Kissin's gender.

In a book like this the philosophy is that the characters are what they do.  So if Neel's actions run contrary to his ideals he is simply a fraud.  That might be why Ghosh has him immediately take care of Ah Fatt so the reader regains sympathy for him.  If the mechanisms of capitalism are so monolithic as to sweep all the characters away independent of their will, can they really be judged solely on their actions?  This novel doesn't seem to have as strong an idea of human agency like in Naipaul, Rushdie, or Roy.  Characters are judged on their actions, and they can make their own fortune sometimes, but they are also often pushed along by external forces.  It often seems that more of life is allowance than will.

Rachel - Ghosh, 5/1

There are many instances of renaming in Sea of Poppies.  However, one particular incident - Baboo Nob Kissin's mistaking Zachary for a god - seemed the most engaging to me.  It's almost as though the person at the bottom of the racial hierarchy has been placed at the top of existence.  In this scene on page 152, Baboo Nob Kissin reads through the crew enlistment papers:

"...when at last he saw the notation beside Zachary's name - 'Black' - he uttered no wild cry of joy - it was rather with a sigh of quiet jubilation that he rested his eyes on the scribbled word that revealed the hand of the Dark Lord.  This was the confirmation he needed, he was certain of it - just as he was certain, also, that the messenger himself knew nothing of his mission.  Does an envelope know what is contained in the letter that is folded inside it?  Is a sheet of paper aware of what is written upon it?  No, the signs were contained in the transformation that had been wrought during the voyage: it was the very fact of the world's changeability that proved the presence of divine illusion, of Sri Krishna's leela."

Babbo Bon Kissin becomes ecstatic and asks Zachary a set of enthusiastic, religiously-driven questions.  To Zachary, however, the interrogation is bothersome, intrusive, and perhaps impolite.  Given Ghosh's obvious political leanings, I thought it was a commentary about how those who are on the bottom of the social ladder are closest to God.  But sometimes the best way to express a serious theme is a light-hearted case of mistaken identity.

Joseph-Ghosh-5/2

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.




Neel's English, right in the heat of his abuse, is itself a symbol of conquest. It is not only his body that is controlled, but his language as well. Ghosh writes, 'But such was the urgency of this desire that words failed him and he could think of nothing to say; no words of his own would come to mind--only stray lines from passages that he had been made to commit to memory: '....this is the excellent foppery of the world...to make guilty of our disasters, the sun, the moon and the stars..' Such a poetic line is immediately undermined by the next remark: 'bend him over, check his arse....(283)'

In the tattoo scene, it is interesting to note that Neel returns to his body. In the short span of less than a couple of pages, he returns to his solitary prison. Ghosh writes, "it was as if the body that he had thought to have vacated were taking revenge on him for having harbored that illusion, reminding him that he was its sole tenant, the only being to whom it could announce its existence through its capacity for pain.(285)' This is a very dramatic passage, but it's immediately undermined when Ghosh announces that the ink was watered down and Neel had even fallen asleep on the lap of the tattooist.

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).