Sunday, October 16, 2016
Postcolonial Writing
Write a blog post (max. 400 words) in which you discuss a link you have found between one of the three poems studied so far and the first four chapters of The God of Small Things and how this link furthers your understanding of the synoptic topic. You must quote at least once both the chosen poem and the novel. Due by Wednesday, November 2nd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn both God of Small Things and A Far Cry From Africa we can see the twins and the poet struggle with their identity. In the novel by Arundhati Roy, the twins Estha and Rahel struggle with their identity since they are born from an Indian mother and an English father: they have Indian and English blood. Moreover, they grow up in an India divided by the Anglophiles and the Anglophobes surrounded by the English and Indian cultures. Therefore, Estha’s and Rahel’s hybridity cause them to question whether they are Indian or English, both or neither. This internal conflict is amplified by their family since their Anglophile grand-aunt Baby Kochamma forces them to speak proper English and punishes them for using the local language, Malayalam, by “[making] them write lines - ‘impositions’ she called them – I will always speak in English, I will always speak in English”.
ReplyDeleteIn A Far Cry From Africa the poet Derek Walcott struggles with his identity. Just like the twins his hybridity is physically manifesting itself in his blood since he has African and English blood, and mentally. Indeed, even though he didn’t grow up in his country of birth but in England, he is also torn by the conflict between the two different cultures. This internal struggle is shown through the rhetorical question in which he asks “Where [he shall] turn, divided to the vein?” because, just like Estha and Rahel, he doesn’t know whether he is African or European, both or neither. This confusion puts him in a real dilemma shown through the rhetorical question in which he asks “How [he can] turn from Africa and live?”: he has to choose between accepting his African roots or suppressing them. However, he wonders how he could live without these roots.
To conclude, in God of Small Things and in A Far Cry From Africa the idea of struggle with identity is present through the twins Estha and Rahel and through the poet himself. This internal conflict shows the reader the consequences of colonialism on the minds of the people from the colonies: they no longer know who they are.
I don't think that Estha and Rahel have an English father, I think Baba was also Indian since Ammu met him in Calcutta. But even though their hybridity might not be in their blood, it is clear that they are divided between the two cultures. The oppression of Baby Kochamma that you pointed out is truly something that influenced them I guess, and Chacko too. I agree with you and really like the link that you made with Walcott's poem.
DeleteThe twins are referred to as "Half-Hindu Hybrids whom no self-respecting Syrian Christian would ever marry" on p. 45. Both parents are Indian but of different religions. They are also, of course, born into a family of Anglophiles.
DeleteDerek Walcott was born and raised in Saint Lucia, in the West Indies.
One feature of Post-colonialism is the exploration of the blurred roots and homelessness of the colonised people. This feature is both present in Margaret Atwood's poem “The Immigrants” and in chapter 2 of Arundhati Roy's fiction The God of Small Things even though these works don't portray the same settings.
ReplyDeleteIn Atwood's poem, the speaker describes why colonised people arrive in a modern country and how they try to integrate into this new society. The speaker specifically describes how, when these immigrants “step on shore” (l.13), “the old countries recede” (l.14). This means, from the moment they took on a new life in another country, they forgot who they were and hence forgot their identity. Moreover, the speaker also states how these immigrants “carry their carpetbags and trunks / with clothes, dishes, the family pictures” (l.19-20). This suggests the colonised immigrants don't have a steady place one could call home: their always travelling, always on the run and can't settle down. Thus, they did not only lose their identity but also their home.
The rootlessness and homelessness of “The Immigrants” correlates with the metaphor used by Chacko in chapter 2 of Roy's novel The God of Small Things. Indeed, Chacko indirectly describes the loss of their identity as being “locked out” of the “History House”, “trapped outside their own history” (p.52-53). Again, through this metaphor, the narrator describes how the natives have lost their identity and home. Yet, this novel is about an Indian family living in Ayemenem, India. Hence, the narrator actually exposes the view of the natives who stayed (the 'stayers'): even though they are still surrounded by the same, due to colonisation, they still lost their identity and home.
Thus, Post-colonial works like Roy's fiction The God of Small Things and Atwood's poem “The Immigrants” reveal the effects the colonial cultural invasion had on the natives: due to the obligatory change of culture, they lost everything (their identity and home) and are consequently wandering the world looking for what was once known to them. It helps us understand that this movement not only included the witness accounts of those who stayed in their native countries, but also of those who chose to leave it all behind in the hope of starting over somewhere else.
Perhaps "displaced people" or "refugees" would be a more accurate way to describe the immigrants of Atwood's poem (instead of "colonised"). Also, remember that these people usually did not / do not choose to leave it all behind - as Atwood shows, they are often forced to leave. Displacement is a major theme of Postcolonial Writing.
DeleteI like the link that you made. Chacko even ends up an immigrant in Canada after the events of the novel!
Looking at two literary works from Postcolonial India (A different History, Sujata Bhatt ; The God of Small Things chap. 1-4, Arundhati Roy) the theme of Hybridity in language seems to be shared by both.
ReplyDeleteThe semantic field of violence with “cropped”, “murder”, and “torture” shows the invaders’ violence during colonization. It is done through the meaning of words. Furthermore when, in Roy’s novel, when the twins are stopped by an approaching train, the passage ““Where the bee <...>reversing” (p59-60) corresponds well to the definition of violence given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation. In fact, the twins are “playing” with words but to Ms Mitten they are destroying her language, “they have Satan in their eyes”. The violence of colonization is here shown through the words themselves as groups of letters. Therefore, in both literary works, language can be violent to illustrate the colonial experience.
In The God of Small Things (page 83), Estha is said to have acted out the “Et tu, Brute?” scene to Kochu Maria. Although being a regular scene, she thought “it was an obscenity in english” and soon “an opportunity to complain about Estha to Mammachi”. Here Roy shows English language has the innate power to insult and the legacy of colonialism. Moreover Sujata Bhatt wrote the rhetoric question “which language has not been the oppressors tongue” in the past perfect tense. Her point is that English being the oppressors’ language is something that started in the past and continued up to now. Thus language can also be destined for forever being a symbol of colonialism, and create of fear.
However the ending expression “the unborn grandchildren grow to love that strange language.”, in A Different History, highlights the angry, confused, and maybe mocking tone of the author. In fact, how can the oppressed use the language of the oppressor? In addition, in Roy’s novel (chap.2), Chacko tells Rahel and Estha that Pappachi was an Anglophile and makes them look it up in a dictionary: “An Anglophile is someone who greatly admires the British or Great Britain.”. He tells them that everyone in their whole family is Anglophile. Both extracts show the mixed feelings of the authors on language, which seems like an inner dilemma to them: they are both writing in English.
To conclude, the paradoxical embracing and rejecting of the West through language is a link between A Different History by Sujata Bhatt and The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy. It also brings further understanding of the postcolonial period and shows new ways of thinking about how language is an important aspect of our identity.
Charles TERROILLE
I'm not sure how English is shown to have "an innate power to insult". "Et tu, Brute" is a Latin phrase, after all.
DeleteGrammar point: "has not been" = present perfect (not past perfect)
The theme of acculturation is shared by both “The Immigrants” by Margaret Atwood, and The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy. It is interesting to mention that both authors chose to use a metaphor in order to explore the loss of cultural identity. It can point at the manifold forms, sometimes disguised, that acculturation can take. It also conveys the impression of a treacherous and insidious process.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter two of The God of Small Things, Chacko explains to the twins, through the use of the History House metaphor, that their family have been “locked out” of their own history. He says that they have “won” and “lost” a war, both at the same time. It refers to the colonization period when the colonizers wanted to force their culture and values on the natives. Those who accepted to give up their true identity gained privileges, whereas those who refused were persecuted. However, being anglophiles is not being English, and after decolonization it is not really being Indian either. The Ipe family has thus become rootless; they “belong nowhere” p.53. They do not belong to their true culture anymore, but neither do they belong to their newly adopted culture.
In “The Immigrants”, Atwood describes people who have forgotten their own language. “Their tongues stumble among awkward teeth” and “their ears are filled with the sound of breaking glass” l.28-30. This metaphor is charged with several meanings. First of all, it means that the immigrants are unable to recognize their mother tongue, which can by extension signify that they have lost their true identity. Furthermore, the breaking glass has a violent, sharp-edged connation which conveys the impression that their true cultural identity has now become a painful reminder of what they used to be.
In The God of Small Things as in “The Immigrants”, people chose to abandon their cultural values to avoid sufferings and get a better life, which was the promise of the colonizers. However, the results of this chosen acculturation are shown as negative, since the very people that encourage the natives to abandon their values never integrated them in their society.
*They do not belong to their true culture anymore, nor do they belong to their newly adopted culture.
DeletePerceptive comparison, Chloé.
In “A Different History” by Sujata Bhatt and in The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, the theme of language is developed as it is an important post-colonial theme.
ReplyDeleteIn A “Different History”, the author raises the question: “Which language / has not been the opressor’s tongue?” (l.20). This rhetorical question suggest the idea of a language being imposed, as the term “oppressor” connotes authority if not violence. This is also emphasized in The God of Small Things when Baby Kochamma makes the twins write lines she calls “impositions”, saying, “I will always speak English” (p.36). The fact that Estha and Rahel are forced to write several times those lines highlights the absence of choice for the future generations as they have to learn English whether they like it or not and whether it is their mother tongue or not.
The absence of choice in the language learnt is developed in Sujata Bhatt’s poem with the final verses about “the unborn grandchildren / grow(ing) to love that strange language” (l.27-28). Here, the author jumps in time and presumes that the “unborn grandchildren” will speak the colonizer’s language and will even “grow to love” it. In Arundhati Roy’s novel, the twins are unlikely to love English as it is imposed to them through punishments and this is one of the reasons why they choose to “read (a book) to (Miss Mitten), backwards”. There are several allusions to the twins reading backwards throughout the novel that show their way of opposing to English as they choose to read as they like, which is backwards.
Furthermore, the idea of the use of language being more powerful than the language itself is also raised in The God of Small Things as Vellya Paapen thinks of his son, Velutha and how “It was not what he said, but the way he said it.” (p.76). This introduces the value of the intention when using language over the language itself, as “the way” can describe the tone, the gesture and many other features that cannot come from words themselves. We can also notice the importance of intention in “A Different History” with the rhetorical language “Which language/truly meant to murder someone?” (l.21-22). The author suggests that no language was created for murder but that invaders have used it this way and therefore, the use of language can be detached of the language itself.
You make a valid point at the end. Language is used as a tool of oppression in almost all of the texts we have studied or will study.
DeleteDon't forget that the twins do develop "a real affection for the English language" (p. 51).
In both The God of Small Things and "A Far Cry From Africa" we can notice the idea of a cycle, especially of violence, that started with colonisation.
ReplyDeleteIn The God of Small Things a particular strong example of this is Pappachi's moth. Indeed, his discovery of the moth was not considered as one when the Westerns were in power and then later the discovery was not recognised as his. Thus, the Westerns took away what was due to him as well as his dream. However, Pappachi seems to be doing the same thing to those he knows, especially Mammachi. For example, p 47 we can read "[Pappachi] had always been a jealous man, so he greatly resented the attention his wife was getting. [...] Every night he beat her with a brass flower vase”. The Westerns took Pappachi's dream away and he passes this attitude on others, resenting Mammachi for her success in her career, which he did not get to have in his, and trying to make her pay for it by beating her. The colonists also used violence when colonisation started in order to impose their way of life and insure dominance which is similar to Pappachi's attitude. By carrying on the colonists’ methods, Pappachi becomes a part of the cycle. He will pass on this violence to Mammachi who will also become a part of the cycle when she threatens Velutha.
We can also notice a cycle in “A Far Cry From Africa”. In this poem, colonists are not the only ones to be criticised but so is humanity and its violence. We can see in the last stanza that the speaker puts the two sides, Africa and Britain, at the same level with the phrase "I who am poisoned with the blood of both". Thus humanity as whole is questioned. Violence was imposed on the Kikuyu and after decolonisation they perpetuated this violence.
Therefore, while one would think that the violence, which is omnipresent in post-colonial writing, only applies to colonists, it often actually targets human nature as a whole and in this way explores the cycle of violence that started from colonisation and continues in the former colonised population. The colonists came and imposed their view with a constant violence that seems to have stayed after decolonisation and seems to be rooted in human nature. The realisation of what humans are capable of leads to a repulsion of one's own nature and thus a question of identity which is another post colonial theme.
*Westerner
DeleteExcellent work, Ambre.
Like Eva, I think one of the most important theme that we have seen so far is identity. In the God of Small Things and in the three poems that we studied, this theme is particularly developed.
ReplyDeleteIn "A Different History", Sujata Bhatt seems to condemn colonization but we can see a conflict in her identity conveyed in the last stanza. She ends the poem with "And how does it happen/ that after the torture [...] the unborn grandchildren/ grow to love that strange language." The two last lines clearly contrast with the rest of the stanza: the poet uses a violent vocabulary with harsh sounds and ends the poem with the use of the verb "love". Thus, the reader is surprised and Bhatt conveys her conflict more strikingly.
This conflict in identity is also present in the God of Small Things, mainly through the twins. They afford a lot of importance to their Indian origines but live in a "family of Anglophiles. Pointed in the wrong direction, trapped outside their own history, and unable to retrace their steps because their footprints hab been swept away." Here, it seems that the grandchildren "grow to love" the English language not because they choose to, but because they are influenced by their family. The members of this family have lost their identity since they have forgotten their "own history"; they gave up their identity to fit in the new culture that the colonizers imposed. Arundhati Roy denounces thus how colonization destroys culture, history and the people's identity, saying that they are now "Pointed in the wrong direction". It comes back to the idea of the "soul [that] has been cropped" in Bhatt's poem. The family has been cut and separated from its true identity and it can only lead to their loss.
Consequently, we have two different perspectives and experiences of people who have lived and endured colonization and we can understand better how it influenced and still influences the people in those countries, struggling to identify themselves to a history and culture.
*one of the most important themes
DeleteThe theme of guilt often emerges in post colonial literature ; I find it particularly striking in two of the works that we have studied so far, The God of Small Things and "A Far Cry from Africa".
ReplyDeleteIn the second chapter of the novel, Chacko critically reflects on the English colonisation by describing it as "a war that has made [them] adore [their] conquerors and despise [themselves]" (p 53). This paradox reveals one of the most insidious mechanisms of colonisation, intruding the intimate identity of the characters to instill a shame of their own origins, making them culprits for merely existing. Moreover, by being Anglophiles and striving to satisfy the expectations of the English culture, the family is inevitably accused of betraying its Indian roots. This condemnation is crystallized in the episode of the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, in which Estha is no longer perceived as a child but as the epitome of Anglophilia, and therefore India’s enemy in the mind of the seller. This strangely echoes a part of Walcott’s poem, describing how "upright man / Seeks his divinity by inflicting pain" (l 16-7). We could link this to the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, who deems himself to be in a legitimate position to punish Estha, as he feels that he is thus re-establishing some sense of justice. Just like the worried beasts in the poem, the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man tries to fulfill a god-like position by ironically resorting to violence and aggression. Irony - as it is often the case in post colonial writing - is of course very important in both of these texts, as it signals to the reader the dangerous confusion between victim and perpetrator.
What is more, the speaker in "A Far Cry from Africa" finds himself in an impasse similar to that of Estha’s and Rahel’s family. His hybridity also places him in an intolerable position, as his natural aspiration to connect with one part of his identity inevitably entails deceiving the other. Thus, a sharp sense of anguish and guilt is conveyed in the last lines of the poem. The relentless succession of rhetorical questions, as well as the insisting anaphoras lines 32 and 33 reflect the inner torment of the speaker, consumed with remorse and frustration.
Guilt is a distinctive motif of post colonial literature ; it can manifest itself in a wide variety of forms. Sometimes associated to the burden of colonial responsibility - and often thrown onto the wrong person - it can also relate to a more subjective feeling, that of not being worthy of one’s origins.
The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy places heavy emphasis on dreams. Though they are not a key theme of post-colonial literature, they do come up regularly and can help us understand the topic. Throughout the first four chapters of her novel she refers to the colonised people – as represented by the family – having their dreams “captured” and “re-dreamed” for them. The significance of this is explored in the chapter “Big Man the Laltain, Small Man the Mombatti”, where the black singer’s dream of singing on the Best of Donahue show is taken away from him by Donahue himself, who interrupts the busker. It is thus changed, distorted, and most of all, taken out of his power.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that the dreams of the colonised are entirely out of their grasp – like those of the immigrants in Margaret Atwood’s eponymous poem. Their dreams take on two forms, both equally unachievable: the ideal life they will create in their new country, full of “miniature orchards”, “children” and “flocks”, and the ideal countries that they left behind with their “thumbnail castles”. Torn between these dreams, they finally realise that both are illusions. The towns of their past countries have “crumbled”, the orchards of their future are nothing more than “shrivel[led]” “fruit”. Most importantly, “they are too poor”. It is their inferiority to the richer inhabitants of their new lands that stops them from achieving their dreams, forcing them to fall back onto much simpler ones – such as “drinking milk” or “singing”. Likewise Ammu, who is inferior by her status as a woman, is pushed by her failed marriage to dream, rather than freedom, of a forbidden. Estha and Rahel, who during their childhood seem to burst with dreams, are forced by Velutha’s death (caused by “History”, or colonisation, which seems to be at the root of the tragedy) to abandon all of these and survive on a single dream: finding and loving each other. Thus all of the characters are powerless in the face of their past, and find themselves relying on the “small things” to carry on living.
“The Immigrants” shows us that the colonial history of a country can change how its inhabitants act, giving them power over the dreams of people who, like the immigrants, might be inferior in status. It helps us understand Roy’s novel, as well as post-colonial literature as a whole, where dreams are an essential part of the dynamics of power between the colonisers and the colonised.
This is a very insightful link, and one that we should come back to when we study Translations.
DeleteA link that can be made between Margaret Atwood’s poem “The Immigrants” and Arundhati Roy’s novel is the idea of laws.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it is said at the very beginning of the poem that the immigrants “are allowed to inherit /the sidewalks”, meaning that the country’s government has said so and has the immigrants’ rights under their control. Moreover, it is clearly stated in lines 8 and 9 that “the towns /pass laws which declare [the immigrants] obsolete” ; this direct reference to the authority of the state demonstrates the idea that the immigrants do not have the right to chose whether to become “obsolete” or not, because the political power ruling the country –thus a few person on the highest level of the hierarchy- has already declared them so. This conveys the idea that these persons, who were forced to flee their country in war, are allowed to find a shelter in a new country that welcomes them, but doesn’t let them start a new life and be active in their new society.
The idea of laws is also present in the novel, first of all with the explanation of the Paravans’ case in chapter II. It is said that there was a time when the Untouchables, compared to Touchables, “were not allowed to walk on public roads, not allowed to cover their upper bodies, not allowed to carry umbrellas”. The anaphora clearly shows that the casteless people have to obey according to the laws put in place by their country in order to punish them.
Furthermore, another interesting feature of the laws is one of the many leitmotivs of the novel, expressed for the first time in chapter I and being “the Love Law s […] that lay down who should be loved, and how. And how much”. These Love Laws –emphasized by the capital letters and seen as a possible cause of the terrible events that occurred within the family- also refers to authority, and how laws are made by the most powerful to control the behaviour of the rest of the human kind, or a part of it.
As a conclusion, laws are a theme expressed in both literary works and in the same manner, being the fact that laws are sometimes made by the most powerful to control its’ people but that has the effect of creating inequalities among a population, which is an idea that can clearly be linked to post colonialism.
Both of Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things and Margaret Atwood's ''The Immigrants'' focus on the exclusion of minorities affected by the consequences of the colonial era.
ReplyDeleteIn Roy's novel, the minority explored is the Untouchables, a group of people considered below the four existing castes, hence their castelessness. Their roles in the Indian society are reduced to unclean, difficult and humiliating tasks and they are ''not allowed to touch anyhing that Touchables touch'' out of disgust. This segregation makes them strangers within their own nation and this was made worse by the English colonisers' policy. Indeed, by converting to Christianity following the English incentive to do so, they ''jumped from the frying pan into the fire'' and their isolation got even worse.
For Atwood, the exlcuded minority are the immigrants coming to Canada. They are not welcome in the country both politically as ''towns pass laws which declare them obsolete'' and socially as people ''want to kill them''. They remain strangers in a place they wish to integrate and their expectations are thus subverted to a much more frustrating image of decay as the ''countries recede''. Those immigrants wish to be welcomed as they surely come from another part of the Empire and share a common history of colonisation with Canada.
Just like Paravans, immigrants are deprived of their identity as a result of the colonial era. Both groups are seen as intruders when they want to join another group in which they don't belong: a new nation for the immigrants or the life of another caste for Vethua (his relationship with Ammu, his job). Their expectations are severely downgraded which leads to dissatisfaction. Indeed, both the novel and the poem end on a sentence that seals the fate of these groups : one rides from ''unknown land to unknown land'' while the other, embodied in the character of Velutha, is condemned to repeat his mistake ''Tomorrow'' which will lead to his death. The reason they might be persecuted is because they lack an identity : migrants have renounced to their country of origin just like Paravans gave up hinduism. When they tried to reach a new culture after they gave up one, it ended up in disastrous results as migrants were refused an integration in the society and Paravans were fooled by the English and persecuted. Not having any identity thus seems to cause people to be despised even more than if they have two and it is something postcolonial writing intends to show by telling the story of those ''not being allowed of leaving footprints at all'', the powerless and small ones.
The sense of belonging is given an important place in postcolonial literature and it is explored both in 'The Immigrants' by Margaret Atwood and The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy in very different ways.
ReplyDeleteIn 'The Immigrants', Atwood explores the alien and isolated position the refugees find themselves in. Their traditions and ways, such as « sow[ing] miniature orchards » (l.22) or « carv[ing) […] wood » (l.23), can't find their place in the new land's climactic conditions where «fruit shrivels» (l.25), or its customs, «wood is for burning» (l.26). This set of oppositions shows the impossibilty of the migrants' integration in their new land. Yet, by leaving in hope for a better future, they became strangers in their own land too. They seem to become uneasy with their own language as shows the diction of Atwood in the seventh stanza : she picks words like «stumble» and «awkward» to highlight their alienation in their own culture and heritage. The refugees are unwillingly stuck in an in-between position where they don't fully belong to any culture or any nation.
It is a much less physical lack of belonging that Arundhati Roy portrays in her novel. The anglophile Kochamma family is similarly stuck in a middle-ground, uncomfortable position between their traditional indian roots and their British ideal. Although they did everything 'right' on a colonizer's perspective (they talk perfectly english, they know english literature from an early age) they don't belong in an English set of people. But they don't wholly belong to the Indian people either : they look down on them just as colonizer's would look down on locals. Moreover the other indians consider them priviledged and turn their anger against these more accessible symbols of their colonial oppression. Therefore the family doesn't really belong anywhere : as Chacko puts it in chapter 2, they are the products of « a war that has made [them] adore [their] conquerors and despise [them]selves. » Colonisers by depriving indian culture and traditions of any value and favouring the ones abandonning their roots, divided the indian people and thus got a better grip on their colonies. These 'few priviledged ones' became stuck between their herited roots and an alien culture they were made to adore.
This idea of being a part of some community, where you are accepted and fit in is closely linked with a sense of security and wellbeing that too many people have been deprived of. Not belonging has therefore naturally become an essential issue raised in postcolonial writing.
*inherited roots; don't forget to capitalize Indian
DeleteI'm enjoying reading these! Excellent links - extremely perceptive with attention to detail. Don't hesitate to comment on your classmates' posts!
ReplyDeleteThe theme of blame is explored in some postcolonial writings. It is striking in Arundhati Roy's novel The God Of Small Things and in Sujata Bhatt's poem "A Different History". They both explore this theme in a different, yet very effective way.
ReplyDeleteIn The God Of Small Things, the most telling example of this theme is Sophie Mol's death. Indeed the characters finds somebody to blame for the drowning of the girl. Chacko blames Ammu, Margaret mostly blames Estha but also Rahel. The speaker never really pronounces herself clearly about who is to blame because she has some kind of a determinist view of the event as she possibly lets the reader think that nobody could have prevented this tragedy from happening. I also felt like there was a criticism of human nature for always wanting to find somebody to blame when something goes wrong. An other example of this theme can be found in chapter 4 of the novel when the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man rapes Estha, Estha blames himself and thinks he is in a way responsible for being molested.
In a very different way, Bhatt explores the theme of blame in an almost indiscutable accusation of the destruction of the Indian culture by the colonizers. She uses very clear language to blame the British for their actions; the most striking lines in my opinion are “the long scythe swooping out of the conqueror’s face” the scythe has connotations of death, weaponry and violence and it is the weapon of the grim reaper the symbol of death. These lines show that the conqueror causes death by his presence. That he is the cause for centuries of civilization and culture to be wiped out. She is commenting on the direct effects on culture, identity, language...by colonization.
I thought the contrast between the way each writer explores blame was interesting to point out as one sounds like a criticism and one is a tool to convey a very powerful message.
In both Arundhati Roy’s novel The God of Small Things and Sujata Bhatt’s poem “A Different History”, the theme of acculturation is explored through different but similar metaphors.
ReplyDeleteIn the second chapter of The God of Small Things, this theme is explored through the metaphor of the History House. Chacko explains to the twins that history is similar to an “old house”, and to understand your history you have to go inside and “look at the books and the pictures on the walls”. However, their family has been “trapped” outside this house, unable to do anything of the latter, or to listen to the “ancestors whispering inside”. They cannot find their way back to this house because their “footprints hav been swept away”. This represents the way the colonizers have no respect for the natives’ cultures, and force them to give up their values and identities.
A similar metaphor is used throughout the poem “A Different History”, the metaphor of books, representing not the knowledge of a single family, but the knowledge of the Indian culture. The crucial importance of this knowledge for the Indian people is shown through the affirmation that it is “a sin to be rude to a book”. However, through a repetition of the expression “it is a sin to”, followed by violent actions on books, and the use of the word “your” which makes the poem feel more like an accusation, Bhatt shows her anger at the fact that the colonizers have indeed metaphorically done all of these actions. This once again illustrates the fact that the colonizer powers show no respect for local cultures, eradicating it without second thoughts, and making the colonized people lose their cultures and identities, being thus subject of acculturation.
In both The God of Small Things and “A Different History”, the process of the colonizers’ cultures being forced on the colonized people while their own identities are erased is portrayed, thus exploring the theme of acculturation, which is a very important theme in post-colonial literature.
A lot of themes seem to mix and echo each other throughout post colonial literature in general. Indeed, in this twentieth century genre, we find a great need from the authors to directly or indirectly blame ,or on the contrary and surprisingly enough, to take the blame. This is a characteristic that we find in both works studied this year: A far cry from Africa by Derek Walcott and The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of guilt is common to both these works and is a theme we can consider as main place for post colonial literature. But, these themes are developed in very different ways in both works. We find that in The God of Small Things, Roy almost makes the reader feel this guilt through the eyes of children. Among the characters in this novel that suffer from guilt we can mention Ammu but the characters that best represent it are Estha and Rahel through their young sometimes childish and unexperienced approach to things (their naked encounter for instance).The best examples that illustrates guilt through the novel can be found in chapter 4: Abhilash Talkies. The Orangedrink Lemondrink man episode has repercussions on both children as they take the blame for something or other, Estha in particular. We can for example quote Rahel on page 114 as she asks Ammu “shall I miss diner as my punishment?” as a reaction to her mother’s explanation on how hurting others' feelings causes them to love you a little less. Roy makes this theme stand out at a very personal level in The God of Small Things , focussing on the “small events” that directly affect the characters. On the other hand, Walcott gives a much larger picture of guilt with his own experience. Through the use of a lot of irony, Derek Walcott takes the blame of a whole nation in a single poem as he explores the events following colonialism. The theme of identity in this poem is strongly linked with guilt as the speaker despite his hybridity is willing to give up his identity and forget history, he is not prepared to pick a side, on the contrary, he critics both of them, makes both of them guilty as he is “poisoned with the blood of both” having caused “slaughter” and “violence of beast on beast”.
In a certain sense, both these text complement each other to give a very detailed and large picture of post-colonialism to the reader (as he discover the views of two native speakers).
Both in Margaret Atwood’s “The Immigrants” and in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things, the use of impersonality is used to highlight difference and incomprehension between the colonists and the colonised, though not in the same way.
ReplyDeleteAs its title suggests, Atwood’s poem studies some immigrants and their life upon their arrival in a new country, but the point of view used is that of someone from that country, who is looking at them almost from above. This is shown using the pronoun “they” whenever the speaker refers to the immigrants throughout the poem. But this choice of pronoun also distances the speaker from the immigrants and enhances the impersonality and anonymity of the situation: the immigrants hardly seem to be people, as we can see further in the way they seem to be described solely through their body parts, like when we read that “their tongues / stumble among awkward teeth, their ears / are filled with the sound of breaking glass” (lines 28-30). This same idea is strongly emphasized in the second to last stanza of the poem where an analogy can be seen between the “arrows and dotted lines” on the “wide pink map” and migration flows, which are no longer seen as moving people but simply figures, vectors to be drawn on a map. These characteristics show the impersonal way in which the “Western” world sees immigrants; and although this same impersonality regarding the other “side” is also used in The God of Small Things, it is used in the other direction.
Throughout Roy’s novel, the narrator focuses on the life of one family through a tumultuous series of events that seem to be – at least in part – a consequence of colonisation. But the focus on this one family is so exclusive that most of the time, all embodiments of authority – the ones making the laws that the family never stops breaking in one way or another – are blurred. Thus, the “Government” is often referred to as an unreachable, mysterious body, generally capitalised in accordance with Roy’s style of writing, like on page 4 where the twins believe that “if they were killed on a zebra crossing, the Government would pay for their funerals”. One famous quotation from the novel also mentions laws, when on page 31 the narrator says that “They all broke the rules. They all crossed into forbidden territory. They all tampered with the laws that lay down who should be loved and how. And how much.” Once again, this quote shows that from the family’s point of view, the laws seem to be self-sufficient, and they have no knowledge of who wrote them.
Therefore, it is interesting to notice that in both postcolonial works, although they are written from different points of view, there is incomprehension, impersonality and blurriness when one party looks at the other, and this aspect of postcolonialism joins the extremely important theme of perspective: one of the main roles of postcolonial works has always been to encourage a change in perspective on behalf of the reader, and this impersonality definitely contributes to this goal.
There is a common idea in Atwood's "The Immigrants" as well as in Roy's "The God of Small Things" : the fact that a certain category of people is denied access to certain aspects of social life by people from higher social ranges. In Roy's novel, Velutha and his family are a good example of individuals determined by others as "Untouchables", that are forbidden even to touch people from higher classes. They have a special "Untouchables' school" (p.75), and most of them do not attend it. Velutha is lucky to have become a carpenter and to have received an education, but he is unable to rise in the society. "Mammachi [...] often said that if only he hadn't been a Paravan, he might have become an engineer" (p.75). This sentence shows how stuck some individuals are when it comes to their place in society.
ReplyDeleteIn Atwood's "The Immigrants", migrants arrive in a country in which they are "allowed to inherit / the sidewalks" (l.1-2), and are "told that they are too poor" (l.6). Moreover, people "[want] to kill them" (l.8). These migrants are regarded as vermin by people from the countries in which they arrive, and nothing is put in place to help them fit into society. Actually, people seem to be trying harder to throw them out than to help them in : they are being separated of the society only because they are unwealthy strangers.
In these two texts, the similarities regarding the exclusion of certain categories of people are evident. The reader realizes that post-colonialism literature is not only about integration and dealing with a new cultural mix, but that it is also about how people struggled to unite with each other, and how the new societies created after decolonization were unequal and based on certain hierarchies, the most important one being the difference between colonial and colonized states.
In 'A Different History' by Sujata Bhatt and The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, the idea of legacy paired with powerlessness is striking and explored in many different ways.
ReplyDeleteIn ‘A Different History’, Bhatt is referring to the “unborn grandchildren (that) grow to love that strange language”, highlighting the inevitable character of the legacy they get: it is party of their heritage to love a language that is not theirs. This is even more emphasize by the negative description of the oppressors that precede the two last lines (that I have just quoted), they tortured, cropped the soul but this does not prevent the future generation from loving the language that attacked them. The colonized people are defenseless and powerless toward a legacy they did not ask for. Furthermore in The God of Small Thing, we find this same cursed legacy, Chacko explains to the twins that “they (are) a family of anglophiles. Pointed in the wrong direction, trapped outside their own history”. Here more than just the powerlessness toward what they are, there is a certain consciousness of this trapped status that they inherited. This is emphasized even more by the end of one of Chacko dialogue with Ammu when he says “ a war that has made us adore our conquerors and despise ourselves”. This idea is very similar as the one explored in ‘A Different History’ and highlight the fact that they were forced.
Through these two works, the powerlessness of the colonized people toward their legacy and inheritance is shown, once with an accusatory tone and once without.
In "A Different History", a poem written by Sujata Bhatt, the speaker shows to the reader how the colonizers have imposed their own culture upon the colonized, without any respect for the Indians and their culture. They did so by using violence, as is shown through the anaphora "a sin to" associated with a verb linked to violence, between the lines 10 to 14. This theme of acculturation is also found in Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things, especially with Chacko's characterization. Without being linked to violence like it is in the poem, Chacko has clearly "grow[n] to love that strange language", as is said in the last line of "A Different History" Throughout the first four chapters, Chacko is painted as a man who has blend in with English culture and Ammu even says that he “marr[ied] [their] conquerors”, in reference to the fact that he married an English woman after going to school in England. Chacko is seen as the “unborn grandchildren” whom Bhatt talks about, one who has completely overlooked the horror committed by the English during the colonization of India, and is now an “Anglophile” as he himself describe their family. With the addition of Ammu’s character, we see the same questioning of how someone whose country has been oppressed with extreme violence can learn to love the oppressors’ culture. Ammu is indeed shown multiple times making mocking remarks about Chacko and his way of lecturing people, making the reader understand that he is starting to become like the English. Thus, while “A Different History” questions how someone can love their oppressor, The God of Small Things shows how this can happen.
ReplyDeleteIn both 'The God of Small Things' by Arundhati Roy and 'The Immigrants' by Margaret Atwood, the idea of an opposition between nature and civilization is explored. In 'The God of Small Things', the place of nature is a very important one for the Indian society, but is threatened by the take over of new technologies imported by Britain. For example, in the first chapter, we learn that Baby Kochamma has recently "abandonned [her] ornamental garden" (p 27) for her "new love", television. The change in her daily activities damnages her precious link with nature. Besides, the importance of the river and the recurrent presence of water as a leitmotif throughout the whole book highlights this idea of a battle between natural elements and the civilized world. Moreover, in 'The Immigrants', the "towns" (l 8) are personnified and threaten the immigrants whereas the natural elements sympathizies with the immigrants and share their pain. Indeed, "the sky is flat"(l 25), "the green fruits shrivels" (l 25), "wood is for burning" (l 26) and the "weather" is "inflected" (l 5) The immigrants want to live in harmony with nature, they want to "sow minarure orchards" and "carve children and flocks out of wood" (l 22,23) but they are refused by the towns. Both post-colonial works give a dangerous aspect to civilization, industrialisation, technologies and the importance of nature, wilderness. These elements are opposed and fight one agaist the other.
ReplyDeleteOne important theme that to me links The God of Small Things and the poem “The Immigrants” is the theme of the past and more precisely how it can trap people and prevent them from moving forward.
ReplyDeleteThis is very clear in the poem “The Immigrants”. It describes a group of people having moved from their home country, led by the will to find a better life and by illusions of these towns they are heading to. However, the author pictures their new life as wretched with words like “infected” or “exhausted”, and from this point the sentiment of regret arises and their past is idealized, “as they step on shore the old countries recede, become perfect”. They are then trapped in this idealized past, as when they try to go back cities are monstrous with “awkward teeth” and “the sound of breaking glass” which conjures up an idea of violence; they are forced to wander onwards but are not actually moving forward, always coming back to this idealized past. Thus, stuck in their past they belong nowhere, which is shown by the metaphor of the pink map where the “arrows” and “dotted lines” represent the never ending and wandering progression of these people, following vectors and having no place to belong anymore.
This theme is a very post-colonial one as the people that have been colonized are now strangers to their own countries, stuck in the idealized vision of their past and feeling like they belong nowhere. Moreover, this theme can be found in The God of Small Things and is at the heart of the Ipe family struggle. Indeed, the Ipe family is stuck in its past, before the drama that happened with Sophie Mol’s death. The attitude of Mammachi and Baby Kochamma towards social classes and castes shows how they still live in the past and don’t accept change. The organisation of the chapters itself shows that the lives of the characters are stuck, as the author alternates chapters set in 1969 and 1993, thus always coming back to 1969. Moreover, the effects of this trauma combined with the personal traumas experienced by the twins make them the perfect example of this vicious cycle. The big ellipsis in the story between childhood and adulthood implies almost a blank in their lives. Rahel made her life but was never able to break apart from this overwhelming history and feels the need to come back to Ayemenem, as Estha does with his “Re-return”. Finally, the picture of the house almost falling in ruins with Baby Kochamma in it seems like a tragic prize of her will to live in the past and to try to preserve her history.
To conclude with, both works help us understand better how the impact of a trauma like colonization can imprison people in their past by making them feel like strangers to their own place and by destroying their future.
Excellent comments about the structure of the novel, Augustin.
DeleteThe link one can establish between A far Cry from Africa and The God of Small Things is the use of contrast and binary oppositions to develop the theme of conflict and opposition. For example when it is clearly implied that Estha in Chapter 4, after having been molested by the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, is feeling unclean and traumatized, when he looks at the “clean white children” of the Sound of Music, in “clean” beds and listening to “clean” songs. It is the repetition of such an adjective that underlines Estha’s trauma and portrays the real disgust he feels for himself. Similarly in Derek Walcott’s poem A Far Cry from Africa, when “again brutish necessity wipes its hands / Upon the napkin of a dirty cause” we also have this idea of clean vs. dirty. The idea of a binary opposition thus remains in this poem and echoes back to the prose extract. When Estha is in conflict with his own consciousness, by feeling unclean, Walcott’s poem shows this opposition on a bigger scale, the one of a two-side conflict.
ReplyDeleteThis is particularly inherent to Post Colonial Writing, as the idea of a cleas versus dirty to describe the conflict between colonizers and colonized has always been present. Post Colonial literature's biggest aims is to denounce this deprecation of one side or culture to elevate the other. Another interpretation could be that colonized nations could have felt unclean because of the influence of colonizing forces, overpowering their own cultures.
All in all, both of these works help us understand the conflicts and the values and ideas associated with them. To a certain extent, these elements can also make one think about the notion of a "single story", question the pre-established and study both sides of the conflict to get a better appreciation of the overall view. This is one of Post Colonial Writing's main goals.
A feature that I found striking in both Atwood’s “The Immigrants” and the first four chapters of Roy’s The God of Small Things is the use of imagery that inspires disgust, or repellent imagery.
ReplyDeleteThe use of such imagery, its lack of glamour, undeniably brings a realistic aspect to the work. In The God of Small Things, the description of Baby Kochamma in chapter 4, her “Blue veins like lumpy knitting running up her translucent shins”, “Fat knees dimpled”, with “Hair on them” brings a vivid and disturbing image to the reader’s mind. The narrator doesn’t gloss over anything. She doesn’t skip over what could be considered improper to remark or unfit for a lyrical narration, showing the reader an unfiltered and sometimes ugly vision of the characters. She thus grounds her narration in a realist world, refusing to cast a dead eye on what we usually see fit to ignore, for the sake of esthetics or clean consciousness. I see this as being one of the main characteristics of post-colonialist literature, as it seeks to expend the reader’s vision of the world by focusing on what has previously been ignored or scorned in Western literature.
Similarly, the olfactory imagery of the refugees in “The Immigrants” describes them as “smelling of vomit” (l. 11), delivering a harsh and vivid image of the refugees described. The phrase is emphasized on the next line through the word “infested”, contributing to making the image more vivid and real in the reader’s mind, bringing a harsh realism into the poem’s narration. But it also appeals to the reader’s conscience. Indeed, using such strong imagery contributes to making “The Immigrants” an engaged poem, an engagement emphasized by the speaker’s presence on l. 10 and her input on l. 31, declaring “[she wishes she] could forget them” : there is an opposition, here, between the speaker’s wish and these refugees’ living conditions, that is typical in post-colonial literature. The reality cannot be ignored anymore, even if there is a strong wish in anyone who is not directly concerned to do so. Post-colonial literature, in a sense, is really about this : exposing what Western society whose to ignore, to show the reader a world that is harsher, more real, more complicated than they know, and give a voice to those who have been cast aside for the sake of society’s good conscience.
oops, I spot a typo : it's “exposing what Western society chose* to ignore”
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne link that can be found between A Different History by Sujata Bhatt and The God of Small Things is the matter of identity, and especially language. In A Different History, Bhatt questions "Which language had not been the oppressor's tongue" and asks herself how the inheritants of colonized countries happened to "grow to love that strange language". It puts into relief the conflict one can face regarding his identity, conflict that can also be found in the God of Small Things when Chacko explains that he "hated to admit it, they were all Anglophiles". The verb "hated" depicts the unnaturalness of their affiliation with English language, as though it came into their lives without them asking for it. Overall, this poem and the God of Small Things evoke the matter of identity and language, two main themes in post-colonial writing. Language is found to be one examples among many others of the way colonizers have alienated other nations' identity. Besides completely imposing their own country's culture among a people that didn't ask for any of it, colonizing countries have also created conflict in the Natives' mind regarding their identity: how should they react regarding the colonizers' language? Do they have a way not to let the dominants impose their views? In these two texts, the oppression brought by colonization is clearly stated and thus is strongly affiliated with post-colonial themes.
ReplyDeletemettre en relief = emphasise
DeleteThere are as many sides and dimensions to a story as there are individuals perpetuating it. However, in our society some stories are given more credit than others because of a manipulation of informations. Colonisation is perhaps one of the best examples of this unsettling ascertainment. Thus, post-colonial writing aims at making us put into question what we are being taught by making us aknowledge that there are different views to consider in order to apprehend History in its globality.
ReplyDeleteSujata Batt's "A Different History" as well as "The God Of Small Things" are great examples of this. One can note that the titles of these works complete each other as they introduce this idea of a plurality of views through the use of « Different » as well as « Small Things » both implying a dichotomy, and even a paradox. Thus « Different » has a more quantitative dimension which highlights its divergence with the general view, and « Small Things » has a rather qualitative one showing the difference in the credit given to these diverging histories by society.
Furthermore, the complementarity of these works also lies in the views they convey on India. Indeed, in « A Different History » India is associated with spirituality which is highlighted by the author’s use of paradoxes. Indeed, using the symbol of « Sarasvati » as well as abstract terms linked to religion such as «sin» which is repeated three times, or « god », the author gives to language a sacred dimension combined with a sense of knowledge when it is associated to India and the indian culture. However, in the second part of the poem she uses concrete and harsh terms such as «murder » or « scythe », this use of contrast and the clear shift between her two separate parts puts into perspective the pacifist and respectful nature of the indian culture. The « God Of Small Things » offers another darker insight on India in which tradition -which is seen as a positive thing in the first work- leads to a lack of coherence. A great example of this comes when looking at the place of women through the character of Ammu. Indeed, while Chako’s divorce doesn’t alter the vision society has of him, whereas Ammu has to accept her "fate of wretched, Man-less woman" the contrast between man and woman as well as the term "Man-less" used as an adjective shows that in this society a woman has no position in society and no hope for the future without a man but also that not being married defines the woman in question in the eyes of society. Thus these contrasting views show that post-Colonial writing is not only about praising colonies and diabolizing the colonizers but rather expressing different viewpoints on a History that is too often one-sided.
*information (uncountable); acknowledge
DeleteI agree, postcolonial writing is about expressing different viewpoints and is a literature of activism, with links to feminism and environmentalism as some of your classmates have pointed out. Indian women are shown to be doubly oppressed, by colonisation as well as by a patriarchal society.
The Heritage/legacy left behind by colonialism has a strong impact on the fate of the colonised and the decolonized generations. However fate isn’t (arguably) immutable and struggling (or following its path) against fate is a feature which is used in a lot of literary works. Quite a few Postcolonial works also use this powerful image of fate as it is and the fate one desires, to insist on the harsh conditions brought by colonialism. It is very present in the God of small things and remains a strong part of Atwood’s poem “The immigrants”.
ReplyDeleteThe fate of an individual is already set upon birth and it is determined by the legacy and heritage passed from the parents. This can be seen in “The God of small things” through the cast system (which was already present in India before but left by the colonizers, they were only remnants of an ancient culture which only tied down the possibility of the evolution of the Indian society into something close to the colonizing powers, which was the “goal” of colonisation: bringing civilization to the colonized countries) that brought more pain than good to the Family and the position of women in India with the very few choices that were possible for Ammu’s future. “The Immigrants” are by definition people who were born in a country which set a difficult life for them right from the start. However these same immigrants chose to move to another country to have a new chance in life and fight against their fate. Just like Ammu when she decides to marry a man (Estha and Rahel’s father) in order to escape the “fate of the wretched Man-less woman”. This struggle against fate in Postcolonial literature works as a powerful tool to denounce colonialism, as the story of Ammu and the harsh, unsuccessful life of the immigrants (“but as always they are too poor”) show that the fate that was cast upon them where too much to handle. This “failure” too reverse fate is affected by different aspects. Nevertheless the one which is highlighted the most remains colonization and its scares which inflict the country future generations in Postcolonial works.
*caste system
DeleteI was very impressed by that sentence too!
ReplyDeleteIn both The God of Small Things and "A Different History" the postcolonial theme of acculturation is developed. Sujata Bhatt presents this idea in her poem as one of the most cruel consequences of colonisation as the colonized population have been ordered and forced to adopt a new language as well as a new culture in order to transmit them to the following generations. Bhatt's violent words such as "murder" or "torture" emphasize how heartless and disrespectful the colonizers are with the Indians because they want to eradicate the Indian culture and values only to satisfy their own interest. Moreover, she uses the abstract and fiction in the final lines " the unborn grandchildren grow to love that strange language" to highlights the fact that the colonizers have promulgated a single way of life : the anglophile one. This idea of new generations of "Anglophiles" is also developed in Arundhati Roy's novel The God of Small Things and especially in the second chapter when Baby Kochamma orders the twins to write a hundred lines of "I will always speak in English" every time she catches them speaking Malayalam. It is actually relevant that Roy has chosen this character in this passage because for me she embodies the colonizers' state of mind by being selfish, snippy and really mean to everyone in the novel. Furthermore, this is an "educational" passage which highlights the way the oppressors proclaimed the English culture : a repetitive and meaningless one. In fact, this actually represents acculturation and also alienation through education. To conclude with, these two works has allowed me to get a better understanding of colonisation and its consequences for the oppressed and especially thanks to The God of Small Things because Roy's writing style is so original and enthralling that the reader can almost feel all the conflicts and tensions that the family has to face because of the British colonisation. Actually, I believe that postcolonial writing is a way to denounce human nature and to raise awareness among our generations on the respect of human rights and the consideration of everyone without making differences because of one's past, culture, or language.
ReplyDeleteI like your emphasis on acculturation through education. This is something we can look at with the next poem we study, and also Translations.
DeletePostcolonial writing is a genre marked by the colonisation and decolonisation process as well as the wars of the twentieth century. Therefore, it reflect a very violent image of humanity as a whole. Indeed, this genre, which is firmly against racially based discrimination, advocates a generally pessimistic view of both colonialist and colonized. This idea is treated in both “The God of Small Things” by Arundhati Roy and “A Far Cry From Africa” by Dereck Walcott. In the second, the poet declares that “upright man / Seeks his divinity by inflicting pain.” The antithesis between divinity and pain emphasis the absurdity of the action but also the truth behind the statement. Indeed, History teaches us that man has always tried to assert his superiority with violence. It is easy to link this with the description of the character of Pappachi is the God of Small Things, especially his reaction to the beginnings of Paradise Pickles and Preserves. Pappachi “had always been a jealous man, so he greatly resented the attention his wife was suddenly getting”, that is why “Every night he beat her with a brass flower vase”. In order to keep feeling superior to his wife, a young successful entrepreneur while he is a retired government employee full of regrets, he uses the only superiority he has, which is physical strength and society to cover his back. This passage is like an extension of Dereck Walcott’s general truth about human’s evil intentions as it illustrates perfectly well the poet’s thought. This link confirm that the two authors have both written in Postcolonial style because even though one is focusing on the actions of indivuduals and the other one is speaking at a broader level, they share the same ideas and value, in response to a similar life-experience.
ReplyDeleteKavi I am terribly sorry but I didn't know what you were writing about in your blog post and I only just read it, and it appears that we have done very similar work. I just would like to say that it was not plagiarism, and I would also like to point out that great minds think alike so either we are both very bright or very dull. Anyways good job!
DeleteArundhati Roy presents human nature throughout her novel The God of Small Things, much like Derek Walcott in his poem “A Far Cry From Africa”, in which Walcott describes the violence that took place in Kenya in the 1950s as the Kenyans revolted against the colonial European government, resulting in much bloodshed. He, having both African and European ancestry, shows the wrongs done by both sides in the conflict, and even references other conflicts that took place between other peoples (the Spanish, the Jews). This makes his poem a reflection on human nature rather than on European colonizers’ and African rebels’ nature alone. Walcott proves this in lines 16 and 17 by saying that beasts fight naturally out of necessity, but that “[...] upright man/ Seeks his divinity by inflicting pain.” The reflection on human nature and men feeling more powerful by hurting others is very common in Roy’s novel, as she constantly creates situations that show this such as Pappachi beating Mammachi or the traumatic ordeal that took place in Abhilash Talkies between Estha and the Orangedrink Lemondrink man. The novel doesn’t exclusively show the bad side of humans, but explores lots of different aspects of human nature, for example in chapter 2 when “Ammu said that human beings were creatures of habit, and it was amazing the kind of things one could get used to.” Although Roy gives a more global view of human nature, Walcott’s poem is on a specific subject, but in essence both writers wished to capture aspects of human nature in words to express their opinions, creating a definite link between both postcolonial works.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletethis is very informative and interesting for those who are interested in blogging field.
ReplyDeleteMathematics Values
The Golden Nugget Casino Hotel Las Vegas - Boyd Gaming
ReplyDeleteThe 벳365코리아 Golden Nugget Casino Hotel 챗 룰렛 Las Vegas. 3131 Las Vegas Blvd South Las Vegas, NV 89109. 22 bet The property was 다파벳모바일 designed hayatavrupark.com and built on an area known for its