“That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong.” F. Scott Fitzgerald
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
The God of Small Things - chapter 13
Choose a short passage or quotation from chapter 13. Analyse it and explain why you chose it. Does it relate to postcolonial writing? Due by Monday, December 5th.
“Chacko needed his mother’s adoration. Indeed, he demanded it, yet he despised her for it” p.248
This is the way Chacko’s feelings towards his mother are described in chapter 13. I think it very well represents the ambivalence of this character. According to me, this quotation is important because it contributes to the characterization of Chacko. Throughout the novel, Chacko is portrayed as an inconstant man. Even though he has an Oxford background and runs a factory (so he quite belongs to the elite), he is a member of the Communist Party. In addition, despite the fact that he has been playing the role of “stepfather” for Estha and Rahel, he becomes extremely violent towards them at the end of the novel. On the whole, his actions do not always fit his beliefs. In this quotation, we can once again see how twisted the character of Chacko is. This is acknowledged by other characters such as Mammachi or Baby Kochamma who can “neither trust nor predict what Chacko’s attitude would be”. I think that all these contradictions create an uncomfortable relationship between the reader and the character. Chacko is a very complex character because we cannot firmly assert if we love him or despise him. Indeed, his acts of violence could be balanced by his very loving moments. His acts of cowardice could be balanced by the responsibilities he takes in the twins’ lives. On the other hand, his behavior could frustrate the reader in the way that Chacko is often showing us great qualities before disappointing us. It almost becomes a pattern, which can be irritating.
I chose a passage from page 264, when we see Margaret Kochamma's reaction to her daughter's death. She accuses Estha of Sophie Mol's death because he “had made the back verandah of the History House their home away from home […] had decided that though it was dark and raining, the Time Had Come for them to run away, because Ammu didn't want them any more”. Even though the blame is on Estha and many arguments are pointed out in this passage, showing Estha's responsibility, Arundhati Roy manages to make the reader feels sympathy for Estha. Firstly, she shows that Estha is just a child with a list of his toys in the History House, and the reader naturally associates children with innocence. The expression “home away from home” is a childlike expression and is repeated many times, highlighting the youth of the twins. The special use of diction really underlines the innocence of the children. Moreover, Roy demonstrates that it is an addition of events that led to such a tragedy. The “raining” was described as “Cyclonic disturbance” and the children had the impression that Ammu “didn't want them any more” because she was locked in a room after the revelation of Vellya Paapen. An addition of events all at the same time led to the drowning of Sophie Mol and the reader knows it thanks to the use of foreshadowings and dramatic irony that Roy employs throughout the novel. This creates a feeling of injustice in the passage that I chose, and I find it very captivating to see what led Estha to be silent and “transparent”. As the reader knows the consequences on Estha's characters thanks to the chapters in the present tense, it makes him feel even more pity and sympathy for this child. We can clearly link this passage to postcolonial literature since it develops the theme of transgression, which is particularly explored in this chapter with the revelation of the relationship between Ammu and Velutha and in this passage. By showing the innocence of Estha and demonstrating that it is absurd to accuse him, Roy seems to denounce the colonisation that has created the society's expectations in India and indirectly led to Sophie Mol's death (something really interesting according to me since the reader wonders which character is responsible but in fact it seems to be history itself).
I chose the passage "{Margaret Kochamma's father} disliked Indians, he thought them as sly, dishonest people. He couldn't believe his daughter was marrying one." p 240 because it offers a sharp contrast with the general Indians' position about English people in the book. Until now, we only got to see some Indians' feelings about English people which all seemed to converge on the same anglophilia. Indeed, throughout the book, English people are looked up to by the different characters and are treated with reverence. For instance, the reaction of the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man changes when he learns about Sophie Mol and we learn that "a new respect gleamed in Uncle's eyes. For a family with London connections". With the passage in chapter 13, we learn about an English man's feelings towards Indians and they are very different. Here, Indians are thought of with contempt and prejudice. Both Indians' and the English man's reactions are based on generalisations, as if a common knowledge about one group was passed on in the other group from generation to generation. This shows the complex relationship between former colonised people and former colonists and how a hierarchy was installed. This hierarchy started with colonisation when the colonised people were taught the Westerners' ways and learned to disregard their own culture while Westerners were taught disrespect for colonised people. Thus, here the relationship between the two groups is described, allowing us to see the vestiges of colonisation and showing a hierarchy that we often see in postcolonial writing.
I chose the expression “Heart of Darkness” from page 267 when Margaret Kochamma's colleagues tell her about being prepared and taking every medication with her since she goes to the “Heart of Darkness”, India. This expression symbolising India refers to the European colonialists who thought the colonised 'uncivil' territories reside savagery and evil: India is seen as the 'centre of evil'. Moreover, with the capitalisation of both nouns, this expression can allude to Joseph Conrad's 1899 novella Heart of Darkness in which a parallel is made between the 'civilised' London and 'savage' Congo. “Heart of Darkness” may also connote a person's character, suggesting every person is capable of being a violent, horrible human being: hence every person keeps a potential 'dark' side. Hence, with the references this expression used by Margaret Kochamma's colleagues makes to colonial outdated believes – as does Post-colonialism, the narrator hints at previous or future tragic events (ie. death, incest).
I chose this quotation because it caught my attention when reading The God of Small Things since I have seen it multiple times in this book. I have also heard it outside of this book.
"Margaret Kochamma's father had refused to attempt to the wedding. He disliked Indians, he thought of them as sly, dishonest people. He couldn't believe that his daughter was marrying one." I chose this quotation from chapter 13 because to a larger extent it shows that the first English generations still see the Indians the same way as at the time of colonisation. Consequently, it emphasizes a real sense of oppression still felt by the Indians which allows the reader to understand that a hierarchy between the two culture has been created at the time of colonisation. Here, the Indians are seen as being inferior and rude while, as we understand throughout the novel, the Indians always see the English as an example and have therefore develop an important anglophilia. Moreover, I found really interesting the different view of the Indians that exists between Margaret and her father because we can see an evolution of their judgement between the two different generations. Still, I think here Arundhati Roy is denouncing through this patriarchal figure the power and impact of the first generation's judgements over the following ones which are in fact trying to destroy this hierarchy between the two people, like Margaret and Chacko.
I believe that this passage is a really powerful one as it allows the reader to reflect on the English and Indians' relationship and its potential evolution. It in fact raises postcolonial issues which are I think really important to understand the Indians' view of the English in this novel.
I chose a passage from page 253, in which Ammu gets mad at the twins after they had asked her why she had been locked up in her room. She blames them entirely, affirming that it is because of them, and that they are “the millstones round [her] neck”. The weight of her words are emphasized by a repetition of the structure “I wouldn’t [...]”. To these accusations, the twins react only by being “surprised” and “bewildered”, and then simply leaving. The shortness of the sentence “So they had” shows their state of shock, and confusion, in a way that they can only do the one thing that makes sense to them, and leave as they were asked to. This passage explores the idea of blame, and even though these were “careless words that [Ammu] hadn’t meant”, this specific moment will lead to the twins, especially Estha, blaming themselves for everything that happens in the future. The reader thus sees how only simple actions and words that were not meant can have a great impact. This is a very important idea in The God of Small Things, as well as in post-colonial literature.
« They did what they had to do, the two old ladies. Mammachi provided the passion. Baby Kochamma the plan. Kochu Maria was their midget Lieutenant. » p 258
This quotation comes right after the revelation of Vellya Paapen and describes Mammachi’s and Baby Kochamma’s instinctive attempt to save the reputation of the family. Despite the growing chaos that starts to unfold in this chapter, the two women display a surprising pragmatism and operate in perfect coordination. Indeed, with their complementary qualities - Mammachi providing the initial impulse and Baby Kochamma plotting the course of the events - the characters execute a terribly effective division of labour, and seem to merge into one well-oiled defense mechanism. This unstoppable machine, up to anything in order to preserve the family’s status and recognition, starts to erase the characters’ humanity. This is shown through the dry syntax that Roy uses, as the very short sentences makes the characters’ actions seem systematic and mechanical. The reader no longer witnesses the melancholic Mammachi and the self-indulging, slightly ridiculous Baby Kochamma, but rather History’s obedient servants. Indeed, regardless of Velutha’s responsibility, as an Untouchable and History’s scapegoat, the characters are willing to condemn him and thus perpetuate a centuries-long process of alienation. It is in this sense that one can link this quotation to post-colonial writing ; just like many post-colonial works transition from the particular to the universal, here the characters become subordinate to a larger narrative that transcends the set context of the family.
''He was grateful to her for not wanting to look after him. For not offering to tidy his room. For not being his cloying mother. He grew to depend on Margaret Kochamma for not depending on him. He adored her for not adoring him.'' P.246
This passage sums up the paradoxical aspect of Margaret Kochamma and Chacko's relationship. Indeed, it doesn't seem balanced at all as shows the chiasmus in the last sentences of this passage. This fragility within their relationship foreshadows its end and moreover, her love for Chacko is only described as ''timorous acceptance of herself'' which highlights the absence of equilibrium between their respective loves. The reference to the ''cloying mother'' underlines his quest of independence and in some way a rejection of his roots against his love for an English woman who doesn't love him passionately in return and does it to get more self-confidence.
This relationship totally has a postcolonial echo as it shows the conflicted aspirations of Chacko and of many Indians in general between adoring their colonisers and reasserting their belonging to India. Chacko embodies this paradoxical ambivalence as he himself says the members of the Ipe family ''adore [their] conquerors and despise [them]selves''. While saying such things, he still married an English woman and despised his mother, as if the family was inevitably bound to admire their conquerors. Fatality is thus also hinted at in this passage. Their relationship embodies in a way the relationship there was between India and Britain during the colonial era (and that still exists years after decolonisation), with India dependent on England and some of its population rejecting their ties with the country to be on the side of the English, who remained indifferent and just seeked power. The English left India just like M.K. left Chacko : to find more steadiness and stability. Afterwards, people admiring the British kept forever the imprint of the Empire, just like Chacko still loves M.K. after they break up. Their relationship in the novel is a way for Roy to point out the consequences that arise from contact with the British Empire and how they affect Indians even multiple generations afterwards. This has a direct link to the Love Laws and we can see they changed drastically after the English colonised India.
"Vellya Paapen kept talking. Weeping. Retching. Moving his mouth. Mammachi couldn't hear what he was saying. The sound of the rain grew louder and exploded in her head. She didn't hear herself shouting." (p.256)
This extract comes right after Vellya Paapen's revelations on the relationship between Ammu and Velutha to Mamaachi. What is striking about this particular passage is the complete silence in which it unfolds : Roy creates a muted scene that reflects the tragic significance this event will have. The reader can only see Vellya Paapen's piteous speech in the rain and the growing rage in Mamaachi. Sounds are completed blocked out and words or justifications lose all importance in comparison with the seriousness of the insult. The short sentences foreshadow the speeding up of the events from this moment on. The choice of the word "exploded" is quite striking and representative of the violence to come. There is alsmot a movie-like aspect to this moment : i really pictured Mamaachi's rage and Vellya Paapen's wailing muted, covered by the overpowering sound of the rain. It really hignlights yet again Roy's mastery of language and the important theme of Crossing Boundaries, that keeps coming back throughout the novel.
“They were not friends, Comrade Pillai and Inspector Thomas Mathew, and they didn’t trust each other. But they understood each other perfectly. They were both men whom childhood had abandoned without a trace. Men without curiosity. Without doubt. Both in their own way truly, terrifyingly adult. They looked out at the world and never wondered how it worked, because they knew. They worked it. They were mechanics who serviced different parts of the same machine.” P.263
This quote effectively unites two descriptions of highly influential characters of the novel – Comrade Pillai and the Inspector – and shows their strong similarities. What is particularly striking in these sentences is the accuracy of the image left in the mind of the reader: we realise that through the repetition of the word “Without”, the two men are stripped of all personality, of all humanity, becoming simply cold, calculating machines acting in terms of practicality, and not in terms of sentiment. I chose this quote mostly because of its linguistic power, the short sentences making it all the more striking while also perfectly representing Arundhati Roy’s style of writing. But this quote also provides insight into postcolonial themes such as power and control, showing that although the action of the novel is centred on the Kochamma family, most events are directed by much more impersonal figures who we see throughout the novel as powerful, strong and unchanging, especially Inspector Thomas Mathew. Although the two men are both powerful, they obviously do not have influence in the same sphere: Pillai (in a very communist way) seems to be devoted to uniting and representing individual inhabitants of the village while Mathew controls the area in a much more recognised and “official” way. In both cases, however, the actual scope of their influence is rather unknown (we don’t know exactly what areas Pillai and Mathew control or exactoly how important they are), showing that from the point of view of the reader, much closer to the Kochamma family, sources of authority are blurred or unknown, leaving the characters subject to influence from a general, authoritarian entity which is always worsening their situation.
Unfortunately, I forgot my book in the boarding school.. However, when thinking about chapter 13, one sentence came back to me ; when telling the story of Margaret and Chacko as well as their feelings towards each other, I remember the narrator saying that "Chacko was deeply in love with his love for Margaret". I think what made this sentence get stuck in my head is its unusual structure, and the powerful paradox that is conveyed through it. How can someone be in love, not with the person, but with his love for the person ? This really shows that there was something more complex about Chacko's love for Margaret. I thought that it could mean that Chacko never did quite know what love is, and thus loved Margaret in a different way, or maybe for different reasons than for Margaret herself-who she is. Chacko was in love with the idea of being in love, and maybe the idea of loving an English woman, white, pretty and from the country seen as the most powerful and respectful compared to the country he is from. Is Chacko in love with Margaret, or with what she represents in the society he lives in ? I know that this sentence has a real importance in describing Chacko's love, because I know how careful Arundhati Roy is with words and how she plays with them, and I must admit that this sentence got me confused and thus made me think a lot. I would like to know if anyone noticed it and saw a different meaning in it. I know that it could simply mean that Chacko was just really in love with Margaret, but I have the feeling that there is something more to it..
I to comment on a quote from p279 when Chack is having a conversation with Comrade Pillai who mentions at one pount that "Change is one thing. Acceptance is another." and I think this phrase is very powerful and meaningful. Here, Comrade is trying to convince Chacko to send Velutha off and fire him and takes this as an excuse by blaming the other workers of not accepting him because he is a Paravan. The reader doesn't trust Comrade Pillai much and the tense athmosphere makes us realize that he is probably speaking for himself and doesn't know anything about the workers' opinion. In fact, it is paradoxical to think that because Velutha is not accepted he should be dismissed because he is not the one to blame for being born a Paravan. It directly reffers to racism as Velutha is rejected because of his origins and the ones not accepting him are not being blamed with the excuse that they have always been like this and that eventhough things change, they are allowed to refuse and reject it. Also, the theme of change is one of the major themes in post-colonialism. Most importantly, what this suggests is the idea that change is part of human life and it happens anyway but one can have trouble accepting it. It can apply to colonialism because it marked history, cultures, identities and lives of many people. Writers highlight all of this and the fact that change happened but has to be remembered before it can be accepted and that it is difficult to accept.
The quote I chose to share is on page 253 of chapter 13. This is the day before Sophie's body is found floating, when the twins had asked Ammu why she was locked in her room and she yelled "careless words she hadn't meant" :
“Because of you!” Ammu had screamed. “If it wasn’t for you I wouldn’t be here! None of this would have happened! I wouldn’t be here! I would have been free! I should have dumped you in an orphanage the day you were born! You’re the millstones round my neck!”
This passage is interesting for the choice of language and punctuation but also for character development. Roy is able to convey very strong feelings through her style of writing but also in dialogue. In this case, the repetition of "you" and "I wouldn't" emphasizes how she blames the twins for what is happening to her, her anger increases every time there is a punctuation mark. Therefore, the words are also accentuated by the multiple exclamation points which create an irregular rhythm. The last sentence is also very important because of the very visual simile she makes between the twins and "millstones", words a mother is not expected to say to her own children, even if the narrator clearly explains that she did not mean them. This leads to a new step in character development as it isn't the first time Ammu is violent towards Estha and Rahel. The reader can obviously be shocked by such harsh words especially since pity has already been created for the twins because of how unfair their lives are.
I chose this passage because it is placed at one of the very important moments of the novel (when Sophie Mol's body is found) and the story starts untangling regarding the Sophie's death. Also relationships between characters continues developing as well as the relationships between the reader and all of the characters.
The passage that I chose in chapter13 is “Being with Chacko made Margaret Kochamma feel as though her soul had escaped from the narrow confines of her island country into the vast , extravagant spaces of his […] like an opened frog on a dissecting table, begging to be examined.” P.245. The reason why I chose this passage is because I believe it summarises in a lovely way this part of the story/this chapter. The power of this extract lies in the fact that it strongly encapsulates the theme of love almost specific to this chapter. Through this phrasing Arundhati Roy gives the reader imagery that is very relatable, imagery that shows the contradicting aspects of love: the idea of quitting her “island county” gives the very frightening and unexpected aspect of love seen as Margaret Atwood goes from something that Roy describes as “confined” to something “vast”. This also links to the “tiny, ordered life” that goes against the “the truly baroque bedlam” mentioned earlier on the same page, that equally reminds us of the theme of hierarchy and the caste system in India that relates to postcolonial writing. This extract also gives the aspect of throwing yourself into something new, in other words it also gives the impression of excitement that characterises love. Another reason why I like this extract is due to Roy’s unusual writing style. This might only accur to me but the mentioning of the “dissecting table” and the “opened frog” reminds me of Papachi’s scientific background and his moths.
I chose a quotation on page 246 because it describes the nature of Chacko and Margaret’s love: “[Chacko] grew to depend on Margaret Kochamma for not depending on him. He adored her for not adoring him”. The verbs “depend” and “adored” mixed with the verbs with negations “not depending” and “not adoring” creates an opposition between Chacko’s love for Margaret and her love for him. This opposition shows their unity since their personalities are so different, it seems that they are almost complementary: together they are one. However, it also predicts an unhappy future together because of this opposition and emphasizes the unnatural aspect of their love, as if it isn’t meant to be, against nature’s laws. This theme of nature is very present in postcolonial writing. Moreover, the verb “depend” connotes a negative or even toxic relation between Chacko and Margaret. This unnatural aspect of their relation is further emphasized by the nature imagery on page 248 when her attraction to Joe is described as “a plant in a dark room[drawn] towards a wedge of light”. This imagery opposite to the idea in the previous quotation makes Margaret’s love for Joe seem as a natural instinct unlike her relation with Chacko. In addition the “dark room” where the plant is in could represent Margaret’s state of mind: she was unhappy with Chacko and all she wanted was to leave him. To conclude, the relation between Chacko and Margaret seems to be unnatural and against nature’s laws unlike her relation with Joe.
“The truth is that in his years at Oxford, Chacko rarely thought of them. Too much was happening in his life and ayemenem seemed too far. The river too small. The fish too few.” page 246
I chose this passage because Roy has already written the same sentences once earlier in the book, when she first introduces Chacko, but here it takes a special meaning as we learn the reasons of his disconcern for his earlier life. The hyperboles emphasis this gap between the life he is leading in Oxford and the one he had in Ayemenem. The first one seems, thanks to the love he has for Margaret Kochamma, much more greater and “alive” than anything that Kerala could ever offer him. Indeed, now that he has tasted the British way of life and all of its modernity, how can he go back to a small backward village in a backward country? Indeed, this passage raises two postcolonial themes at once. First, as we have seen, the attraction that the colonizers way of life have on brainwashed anglophile colonised, the paradoxical love of the oppressor country that the oppressed have, in his quest for better. Second, this passage addresses the main postcolonial theme of loss of identity, as we can see Chacko rootless, cutting all ties with his past, which defines him. He will indeed lose himself in this life which seems to him higher, but the fall will only be greater.
"Her tolerance of 'Men's Needs' as far as her son was concerned, became the fuel for her unmanageable fury at her daughter" p 258.
Mammachi's reaction to finding out what happened between Velutha, an Untouchable, and her daughter is disgust and rage. Whilst she had tolerated Velutha for years, the invisible line separating their castes became visible with the two lovers' transgression. I think this quote is a good representation of the gender disparities in the Indian society. Men and even women have different expectations for each gender, and their level of tolerance for men and their mistakes is that much higher than the one they have towards women's. This aspect is much more emphasized as the Caste matter comes around. Therefore, both social and gender disparities are evoked in this quote and have much to do with post-colonialism, referring to one's treatment of who is considered to be inferior and not worthy of tolerance. The theme of transgression is also important and makes us think of all the boundaries that were crossed during colonialist eras as well as all the frontiers that were installed.
“She concealed her anguish under the brisk, practical mask of a schoolteacher.” p.250
This how Margaret Kochamma is explored in chapter 13. In fact, in my opinion, she isn't a very developed figure through the novel, but she experiences just as much tragedy as anyone. This quote represents her struggle with familial relations and obligations. According to me, this quotation is important because it contributes to the characterization of Margaret Kochamma. Mainly because of chapter 13 she is portrayed as a tragic character.
Margaret Kochamma was working as a teacher when Joe died in an accident. To cope with it, she applied a strict routine to her life and Sophie Mol's. The word "concealed" indicates her strong will to lock this memory away. Roy chose to insist on this point with the allegory of a mask. This mask is "practical" as if it's Margaret Kochamma's only purpose was to fight this past. She seems obliged to act this way, contributing to her tragic aspect. In this quote the theme of fear is introduced as it seems to drive the character of Margaret Kochamma. Additionally the adjective "brisk" creates a paradox between a lively mask and what it hides : Joe's terrible death. It emphasizes the pain she is going through with such contradictory feelings: she is seen a teared apart by the reader.
This quote is in fact very useful because it contributes to the characterization of Margaret Kochamma.
Moreover it does also very well relate to postcolonial writing. Margaret Kochamma, by asking Chacko for a divorce, bravely fought with the society. In a way she finally established an identity for herself. But, with the death of Joe we are reminded that she could not defeat destiny, and in the end of the story, she loses everything. Through this character, we can visualize a woman who put in her genuine effort to live a life of her choice. We are reminded of the power of society in colonized countries, and the tragic fate of the women who disobeyed its rules.
« Then the Terror took hold of him and shook the words out of him. He told Mammachi what he had seen. The story of the little boat that crossed the river night after night, and who was in it. The story of a man and a woman, standing together in the moonlight. Skin to skin.” This quotation represents the moment Vellya Paapen told Mammachi everything about what he had seen, led by fear and shame. It is interesting because it shows the pressure of society and the caste system on Paravans. The personalisation of the Terror, along with the capitalisation of the word, emphasize its overwhelming presence. This terrible entity “took hold of him” showing the destructive side of it and how fear can transform people in what they are not really, like making an informer out of a father. The part “shook the words out of him” is interesting because it associated the man to a tree which is being deprived from his fruits (symbol for his son?) as well as it takes the notion of moral conscience out of him. He is just a tool used by a force beyond his control. Moreover, what is interesting is the juxtaposition of this tragic build up on fear and shame with the beauty of the description of this “shameful” story. The syntax of the following sentences is actually beautiful and made very poetic with words like “night” and “moonlight”, with an emphasis on duality ‘night after night”, “a man and a woman”, “skin to skin” (nominal sentence making it stand out and emphasizing the beauty of the syntax and of the image), and an anonymization of Ammu and Velutha which makes it the more striking as it is universalized to love in general. Thus, the efforts Arundhati Roy put both to build up on fear and shame and to make the story beautiful and deeply linked with the universal notion of love highlight the paradox of this society, of this colonial era where society expectations crushed personal feelings and destroyed links (love and familial links). This notion is very linked to post-colonial literature because the wounds of this period had to be healed, often through writing and witnessing the past. “Things Fall Apart” is a poem by Jackie Kay which also describes how the pressure of society, here the ideal imposed on native populations, destroyed the links she had with her father, making them stranger to each other, as Vellya Paapen and Velutha are now.
The quote I chose to comment on is at page 267, "(...) Sophie Mol became a Memory, while The Loss of Sophie Mol grew robust and alive. Like a fruit in season. Every season."
This quote introduces the theme of memory which we can link to post-colonial writing. Indeed, here we can see that Sophie Mol is only associated with what happened to her which entails a complete loss of her own identity. This is expressed through the paradox between "a memory" and "robust and alive". Memories can be forgotten and are not omnipresent in our minds whereas the terms "robust" and "alive" show that the it still have an impact on the present of the persons who are alive. This omnipresence of Sophie Mol's death in the character's minds is shown by the simile as it is compared to a fruit that never fades away season after season. This simile is really effective as it shows that even when the season is hostile to the development of fruits, it manages to subsist. Consequently, no matter how much the characters try to forget about the events it can never be erased and becomes a part of their history which they need to put up with on the daily. This is linked to post-colonial writing as it shows how one event can, by its intensity, destroy all the other memories that existed before. We can thus see a contrast between the large amount of time it takes to create a common culture and identity and the shortness and suddenness of events that destroy everything that had been previously built. Consequently, this contrast can be linked to the sentence that is repeated many times in the book "everything can change in a day".
“Vellya Paapen began to cry. Half of him wept. Tears welled up in his real eye and shone on his black cheek. With his other eye he stared stonily ahead. An old Paravan, who had seen the Walking Backwards days, torn between Loyalty and Love.” I chose this quote because it represents a dilemma which is based on recurrent elements which entails complications throughout the book (the caste system, love, customs). Here Vellya Paapen has to choose between his family or the rules and laws that were engraved into him as an Untouchable. This dilemma is rather complicated as it forces Vellya to either renounce to his past and to his roots (which form his Identity) to save his son, or to cast away his love and save his years of “service” and “Loyalty” towards the other castes. A battle between his own past and Velutha’s future unfolds inside him. However this quote can also give an idea of how “customs” give birth to a great pressure from the society on unmarried or divorced women and untouchables and of their importance in India. The suffering of Vellya is pictured here through the way his sorrow and fear are tearing his face apart: his fake eye making him unable to cry normally, only one eye weeps. Therefor his entire being seems to be torn apart by two very strong emotions, while “half of him wept” the other part remains impassive. Such a visual disarray and despair shown on Vellya Paapen’s face conveys to the reader the state of chaos Vellya is going through, and foreshadows at the same time, that Sophie Mole’s death will have more impact than simple mournings and a few accusations from Margaret Kochamma’s to the 2 siblings.
“Inspector Thomas Mathew, receding behind his Air India moustache, understood perfectly. He had a Touchable wife, two Touchable daughters – whole Touchable generations waiting in their Touchable wombs...” (p. 259)
I couldn't resist choosing this ironic input from the narrator, which comes right after Baby Kochamma explained to the police officer what she believes about Velutha and Ammu's relationship. The use of capitalization, in the first sentence, makes the inspector sound like someone very respectable and important. This results in a sense of hierarchy, one that declares him superior to Untouchables (who are not mentioned here—only omnipresent in the implications this extract carries). In the second sentence, capitalization is used in the repeated adjective “Touchable”. The repetition is also emphasized by the [t] alliteration, which gives the repeated word a brutal and unnatural aspect. This contributes to the narrator’s satiric tone, along with her use of irony through the adverb “perfectly”, as she goes on to prove that in fact, the only thing the inspector understands is what he sees and thinks from a privileged position. The theme of perspective is developed, but here as something harmful. As a Touchable man, he is placed high in the hierarchy set up by the caste system, and doesn’t need to question himself. He doesn’t need to understand the situation, because it doesn’t affect him. This apathy is a major factor in Velutha’s death. Arundhati thus skillfully denounces everyday political corruption, showing that, in an unfair political or social system, privileged and powerful people keep their position and perpetuate injustice because they are unaffected by any repercussion the system might have. I think this idea is central to both post-colonial literature and the novel, which is partially why I chose this extract, but I also love the ironic tone; I think it creates a complicity with the reader which conveys the idea much more powerfully.
The quotation I chose to talk about is actually the title of chapter 13, “The Pessimist and the Optimist”. This is first of all because it relates directly to the chapter, as a reference to the story of the two twins that Chacko tells Margaret Kochamma in the café at Oxford. The shared experience of this story is what binds Chacko and Margaret together. It gives rise to a relationship which represents the clash of cultures between the English woman and the Indian man, which is telling because of the stereotype of English people (thus Margaret) being pessimists, whereas Chacko is an eternal optimist. Therefore the phrase reveals more about the characters and their relationships in a post-colonial context. Secondly, the story of the optimist and the pessimist reminds us in an eerie way of Rahel and Estha, who we might be able to associate respectively with Pete and Stuart (remember: “Anything can happen to anyone”…). But more than representing Ammu’s children, the title of the chapter seems to reveal the underlying duality which is a feature of The God of Small Things, and to a greater extent the whole post-colonial writing, based as it is on opposition – in culture, in class and in gender. Finally, the title also suggests the power of thought in the representation of events; that is to say that perhaps it is our way of perceiving things that influences how much they impact us, rather than the things themselves. This ties in with the theme of responsibility, and the point of view of the children which we find throughout the novel.
"They did what they had to do, the two old ladies. Mammachi provided the passion. Baby Kochamma the plan. Kochu Maria was their midget Lieutenant. " p 258
This quote comes just after Vellya Paapen has revealed the relationship between Ammu and Velutha. Baby Kochamma and Mammachi are trying to find a way to save the reputation of their family. Right before the scene is very chaotic and there seems to be no solution however the reaction of those "two old ladies" is organised. Indeed they elaborate a plan with an unseen pragmatisme until then. The "passion" that is spoke about is the beginning of the plan, the reason of its existence that Mammachi through her rage will give. Then in perfect coordination Baby Kochamma makes the plan that Kochu Maria is going to apply. This following of actions is mechanic one leading to the other, unstoppable until it ends.Moreover during this elaboration, the three characters seem detached from their usual association and become the gearwheels of a machine that is going to lead to Velutha's death. Their scheme and its terrible repercussions is explored with the short sentences that Roy is using, relating the sense of mechanism behind their action and so the lack of humanity too. Furthermore the three last sentences have a similar construction that convey a change in the characters as well as their association. This passage can be link to post-colonialism as an innocent is scapegoated in order to save the reputation and domination of a stronger force exactly like Velutha is taking the blame for the reputation of the family. To conclude it brings up the theme of faith that is explored in lots of post-colonialism works as Velutha's death depends on his father's loyalty to Mammachi and on the fact that he saw them when he shouldn't have.
Page 246 : "He was deeply in love with his love for Margaret Kochamma and had no room in his heart for anyone else."
To me, this quotation really illustrates Chacko's character and state of mind. We see that he is in love with the idea of loving Margaret, not actually with her. It seems to have a broader meaning to him than she first thought : it allowed him to feel really Englishm since dating a white woman would mean that he had succeeded his transformation. But the fact that he loved the idea of loving her went totally against their relationship, since she loved him or being who he really was, whereas he wanted to become someone totally different. I liked this quotation because I thought it had a deep postcolonial feel to it, as we see that Chacko is totally overwhelmed by his Anglophile personnality, and does not realise that he is on the verge of ruining his relationship with Margaret.
"She concealed her anguish under the brisk, practical mask of a schoolteacher. The Stern, schoolteacher-shaped Hole in the Universe (who sometimes slapped)."
I chose this passage from page 237 (of my hardcover edition) not only because it is one of the few times Margaret Kochamma is developed as a character, but also because I find it to be a great example of Roy's writing style. Indeed, Roy presents Margaret's job as a schoolteacher as just being a "mask" that she uses to hide her pain from Joe's death. Furthermore, the person hiding behind this mask has seemingly disappeared or evaporated (which perhaps explains the sibilance, imitating the sound of a gas escaping), leaving behind a "schoolteacher-shaped Hole in the Universe": Margaret Kochamma has metaphorically vanished,and her function has assumed her life. I would like to think that, instead of being Roy's usual somewhat random capitalization of letters, the "H" and the "U" of "Hole in the Universe" are capitalized because it is Margaret Kochamma's new name, her new identity. This relates to the post-colonial theme of identity, which is very important and present at this part of the novel as not only Margaret experiences great losses, and she is not the only one who's grasp on her own identity is put to the test (e.g. Ammu's identity as a rather highborn girl is put to the test by her love for an Untouchable).
"It is unreasonable to expect a person to remember what she didn't know had happen." p.265
I think this quotation, which is quite ironical, sums up in an effective way the events of the chapter, contrasting with them. Indeed, in this chapter, we have several events that would be considered unreasonable according to this quote. For exemple, Baby Kochamma blames Velutha for his relationship with Ammu, inventing a story that as never occurred. Hence, her story is purposely deformed and invented but the police officer believes it anyway; this also develops the post-colonial theme of hierarchy linked with the social classes. Moreover, another contrasting event of this chapter with the quote is the blame put on Estha for the death of Sophie Mol. Margaret Kochamma believes that "Estha was somehow responsible for Sophie Mol's death" (p.164) and his name is repeated four time in p.164, which reinforces this idea. Throughout the whole book, Estha is blamed for this death, even if nobody really knows what had happen. Thus, according to the quotation, Baby Kochamma and Margaret Kochamma are "unreasonable" since the both "remember" things that aren't true.
“Chacko needed his mother’s adoration. Indeed, he demanded it, yet he despised her for it” p.248
ReplyDeleteThis is the way Chacko’s feelings towards his mother are described in chapter 13. I think it very well represents the ambivalence of this character. According to me, this quotation is important because it contributes to the characterization of Chacko. Throughout the novel, Chacko is portrayed as an inconstant man.
Even though he has an Oxford background and runs a factory (so he quite belongs to the elite), he is a member of the Communist Party. In addition, despite the fact that he has been playing the role of “stepfather” for Estha and Rahel, he becomes extremely violent towards them at the end of the novel. On the whole, his actions do not always fit his beliefs. In this quotation, we can once again see how twisted the character of Chacko is.
This is acknowledged by other characters such as Mammachi or Baby Kochamma who can “neither trust nor predict what Chacko’s attitude would be”.
I think that all these contradictions create an uncomfortable relationship between the reader and the character. Chacko is a very complex character because we cannot firmly assert if we love him or despise him. Indeed, his acts of violence could be balanced by his very loving moments. His acts of cowardice could be balanced by the responsibilities he takes in the twins’ lives. On the other hand, his behavior could frustrate the reader in the way that Chacko is often showing us great qualities before disappointing us. It almost becomes a pattern, which can be irritating.
I chose a passage from page 264, when we see Margaret Kochamma's reaction to her daughter's death. She accuses Estha of Sophie Mol's death because he “had made the back verandah of the History House their home away from home […] had decided that though it was dark and raining, the Time Had Come for them to run away, because Ammu didn't want them any more”. Even though the blame is on Estha and many arguments are pointed out in this passage, showing Estha's responsibility, Arundhati Roy manages to make the reader feels sympathy for Estha. Firstly, she shows that Estha is just a child with a list of his toys in the History House, and the reader naturally associates children with innocence. The expression “home away from home” is a childlike expression and is repeated many times, highlighting the youth of the twins. The special use of diction really underlines the innocence of the children. Moreover, Roy demonstrates that it is an addition of events that led to such a tragedy. The “raining” was described as “Cyclonic disturbance” and the children had the impression that Ammu “didn't want them any more” because she was locked in a room after the revelation of Vellya Paapen. An addition of events all at the same time led to the drowning of Sophie Mol and the reader knows it thanks to the use of foreshadowings and dramatic irony that Roy employs throughout the novel. This creates a feeling of injustice in the passage that I chose, and I find it very captivating to see what led Estha to be silent and “transparent”. As the reader knows the consequences on Estha's characters thanks to the chapters in the present tense, it makes him feel even more pity and sympathy for this child.
ReplyDeleteWe can clearly link this passage to postcolonial literature since it develops the theme of transgression, which is particularly explored in this chapter with the revelation of the relationship between Ammu and Velutha and in this passage. By showing the innocence of Estha and demonstrating that it is absurd to accuse him, Roy seems to denounce the colonisation that has created the society's expectations in India and indirectly led to Sophie Mol's death (something really interesting according to me since the reader wonders which character is responsible but in fact it seems to be history itself).
I chose the passage "{Margaret Kochamma's father} disliked Indians, he thought them as sly, dishonest people. He couldn't believe his daughter was marrying one." p 240 because it offers a sharp contrast with the general Indians' position about English people in the book. Until now, we only got to see some Indians' feelings about English people which all seemed to converge on the same anglophilia. Indeed, throughout the book, English people are looked up to by the different characters and are treated with reverence. For instance, the reaction of the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man changes when he learns about Sophie Mol and we learn that "a new respect gleamed in Uncle's eyes. For a family with London connections". With the passage in chapter 13, we learn about an English man's feelings towards Indians and they are very different. Here, Indians are thought of with contempt and prejudice. Both Indians' and the English man's reactions are based on generalisations, as if a common knowledge about one group was passed on in the other group from generation to generation. This shows the complex relationship between former colonised people and former colonists and how a hierarchy was installed. This hierarchy started with colonisation when the colonised people were taught the Westerners' ways and learned to disregard their own culture while Westerners were taught disrespect for colonised people. Thus, here the relationship between the two groups is described, allowing us to see the vestiges of colonisation and showing a hierarchy that we often see in postcolonial writing.
ReplyDeleteI chose the expression “Heart of Darkness” from page 267 when Margaret Kochamma's colleagues tell her about being prepared and taking every medication with her since she goes to the “Heart of Darkness”, India. This expression symbolising India refers to the European colonialists who thought the colonised 'uncivil' territories reside savagery and evil: India is seen as the 'centre of evil'. Moreover, with the capitalisation of both nouns, this expression can allude to Joseph Conrad's 1899 novella Heart of Darkness in which a parallel is made between the 'civilised' London and 'savage' Congo. “Heart of Darkness” may also connote a person's character, suggesting every person is capable of being a violent, horrible human being: hence every person keeps a potential 'dark' side. Hence, with the references this expression used by Margaret Kochamma's colleagues makes to colonial outdated believes – as does Post-colonialism, the narrator hints at previous or future tragic events (ie. death, incest).
ReplyDeleteI chose this quotation because it caught my attention when reading The God of Small Things since I have seen it multiple times in this book. I have also heard it outside of this book.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Margaret Kochamma's father had refused to attempt to the wedding. He disliked Indians, he thought of them as sly, dishonest people. He couldn't believe that his daughter was marrying one." I chose this quotation from chapter 13 because to a larger extent it shows that the first English generations still see the Indians the same way as at the time of colonisation. Consequently, it emphasizes a real sense of oppression still felt by the Indians which allows the reader to understand that a hierarchy between the two culture has been created at the time of colonisation. Here, the Indians are seen as being inferior and rude while, as we understand throughout the novel, the Indians always see the English as an example and have therefore develop an important anglophilia. Moreover, I found really interesting the different view of the Indians that exists between Margaret and her father because we can see an evolution of their judgement between the two different generations. Still, I think here Arundhati Roy is denouncing through this patriarchal figure the power and impact of the first generation's judgements over the following ones which are in fact trying to destroy this hierarchy between the two people, like Margaret and Chacko.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this passage is a really powerful one as it allows the reader to reflect on the English and Indians' relationship and its potential evolution. It in fact raises postcolonial issues which are I think really important to understand the Indians' view of the English in this novel.
I chose a passage from page 253, in which Ammu gets mad at the twins after they had asked her why she had been locked up in her room. She blames them entirely, affirming that it is because of them, and that they are “the millstones round [her] neck”. The weight of her words are emphasized by a repetition of the structure “I wouldn’t [...]”. To these accusations, the twins react only by being “surprised” and “bewildered”, and then simply leaving. The shortness of the sentence “So they had” shows their state of shock, and confusion, in a way that they can only do the one thing that makes sense to them, and leave as they were asked to.
ReplyDeleteThis passage explores the idea of blame, and even though these were “careless words that [Ammu] hadn’t meant”, this specific moment will lead to the twins, especially Estha, blaming themselves for everything that happens in the future. The reader thus sees how only simple actions and words that were not meant can have a great impact. This is a very important idea in The God of Small Things, as well as in post-colonial literature.
« They did what they had to do, the two old ladies. Mammachi provided the passion. Baby Kochamma the plan. Kochu Maria was their midget Lieutenant. » p 258
ReplyDeleteThis quotation comes right after the revelation of Vellya Paapen and describes Mammachi’s and Baby Kochamma’s instinctive attempt to save the reputation of the family. Despite the growing chaos that starts to unfold in this chapter, the two women display a surprising pragmatism and operate in perfect coordination. Indeed, with their complementary qualities - Mammachi providing the initial impulse and Baby Kochamma plotting the course of the events - the characters execute a terribly effective division of labour, and seem to merge into one well-oiled defense mechanism.
This unstoppable machine, up to anything in order to preserve the family’s status and recognition, starts to erase the characters’ humanity. This is shown through the dry syntax that Roy uses, as the very short sentences makes the characters’ actions seem systematic and mechanical. The reader no longer witnesses the melancholic Mammachi and the self-indulging, slightly ridiculous Baby Kochamma, but rather History’s obedient servants. Indeed, regardless of Velutha’s responsibility, as an Untouchable and History’s scapegoat, the characters are willing to condemn him and thus perpetuate a centuries-long process of alienation. It is in this sense that one can link this quotation to post-colonial writing ; just like many post-colonial works transition from the particular to the universal, here the characters become subordinate to a larger narrative that transcends the set context of the family.
''He was grateful to her for not wanting to look after him. For not offering to tidy his room. For not being his cloying mother. He grew to depend on Margaret Kochamma for not depending on him. He adored her for not adoring him.'' P.246
ReplyDeleteThis passage sums up the paradoxical aspect of Margaret Kochamma and Chacko's relationship. Indeed, it doesn't seem balanced at all as shows the chiasmus in the last sentences of this passage. This fragility within their relationship foreshadows its end and moreover, her love for Chacko is only described as ''timorous acceptance of herself'' which highlights the absence of equilibrium between their respective loves. The reference to the ''cloying mother'' underlines his quest of independence and in some way a rejection of his roots against his love for an English woman who doesn't love him passionately in return and does it to get more self-confidence.
This relationship totally has a postcolonial echo as it shows the conflicted aspirations of Chacko and of many Indians in general between adoring their colonisers and reasserting their belonging to India. Chacko embodies this paradoxical ambivalence as he himself says the members of the Ipe family ''adore [their] conquerors and despise [them]selves''. While saying such things, he still married an English woman and despised his mother, as if the family was inevitably bound to admire their conquerors. Fatality is thus also hinted at in this passage. Their relationship embodies in a way the relationship there was between India and Britain during the colonial era (and that still exists years after decolonisation), with India dependent on England and some of its population rejecting their ties with the country to be on the side of the English, who remained indifferent and just seeked power. The English left India just like M.K. left Chacko : to find more steadiness and stability. Afterwards, people admiring the British kept forever the imprint of the Empire, just like Chacko still loves M.K. after they break up. Their relationship in the novel is a way for Roy to point out the consequences that arise from contact with the British Empire and how they affect Indians even multiple generations afterwards. This has a direct link to the Love Laws and we can see they changed drastically after the English colonised India.
*sought (not seeked)
Delete"Vellya Paapen kept talking. Weeping. Retching. Moving his mouth. Mammachi couldn't hear what he was saying. The sound of the rain grew louder and exploded in her head. She didn't hear herself shouting." (p.256)
ReplyDeleteThis extract comes right after Vellya Paapen's revelations on the relationship between Ammu and Velutha to Mamaachi.
What is striking about this particular passage is the complete silence in which it unfolds : Roy creates a muted scene that reflects the tragic significance this event will have. The reader can only see Vellya Paapen's piteous speech in the rain and the growing rage in Mamaachi. Sounds are completed blocked out and words or justifications lose all importance in comparison with the seriousness of the insult. The short sentences foreshadow the speeding up of the events from this moment on. The choice of the word "exploded" is quite striking and representative of the violence to come. There is alsmot a movie-like aspect to this moment : i really pictured Mamaachi's rage and Vellya Paapen's wailing muted, covered by the overpowering sound of the rain. It really hignlights yet again Roy's mastery of language and the important theme of Crossing Boundaries, that keeps coming back throughout the novel.
“They were not friends, Comrade Pillai and Inspector Thomas Mathew, and they didn’t trust each other. But they understood each other perfectly. They were both men whom childhood had abandoned without a trace. Men without curiosity. Without doubt. Both in their own way truly, terrifyingly adult. They looked out at the world and never wondered how it worked, because they knew. They worked it. They were mechanics who serviced different parts of the same machine.” P.263
ReplyDeleteThis quote effectively unites two descriptions of highly influential characters of the novel – Comrade Pillai and the Inspector – and shows their strong similarities. What is particularly striking in these sentences is the accuracy of the image left in the mind of the reader: we realise that through the repetition of the word “Without”, the two men are stripped of all personality, of all humanity, becoming simply cold, calculating machines acting in terms of practicality, and not in terms of sentiment.
I chose this quote mostly because of its linguistic power, the short sentences making it all the more striking while also perfectly representing Arundhati Roy’s style of writing. But this quote also provides insight into postcolonial themes such as power and control, showing that although the action of the novel is centred on the Kochamma family, most events are directed by much more impersonal figures who we see throughout the novel as powerful, strong and unchanging, especially Inspector Thomas Mathew. Although the two men are both powerful, they obviously do not have influence in the same sphere: Pillai (in a very communist way) seems to be devoted to uniting and representing individual inhabitants of the village while Mathew controls the area in a much more recognised and “official” way. In both cases, however, the actual scope of their influence is rather unknown (we don’t know exactly what areas Pillai and Mathew control or exactoly how important they are), showing that from the point of view of the reader, much closer to the Kochamma family, sources of authority are blurred or unknown, leaving the characters subject to influence from a general, authoritarian entity which is always worsening their situation.
Unfortunately, I forgot my book in the boarding school.. However, when thinking about chapter 13, one sentence came back to me ; when telling the story of Margaret and Chacko as well as their feelings towards each other, I remember the narrator saying that "Chacko was deeply in love with his love for Margaret". I think what made this sentence get stuck in my head is its unusual structure, and the powerful paradox that is conveyed through it. How can someone be in love, not with the person, but with his love for the person ? This really shows that there was something more complex about Chacko's love for Margaret. I thought that it could mean that Chacko never did quite know what love is, and thus loved Margaret in a different way, or maybe for different reasons than for Margaret herself-who she is. Chacko was in love with the idea of being in love, and maybe the idea of loving an English woman, white, pretty and from the country seen as the most powerful and respectful compared to the country he is from. Is Chacko in love with Margaret, or with what she represents in the society he lives in ? I know that this sentence has a real importance in describing Chacko's love, because I know how careful Arundhati Roy is with words and how she plays with them, and I must admit that this sentence got me confused and thus made me think a lot. I would like to know if anyone noticed it and saw a different meaning in it. I know that it could simply mean that Chacko was just really in love with Margaret, but I have the feeling that there is something more to it..
ReplyDeleteI to comment on a quote from p279 when Chack is having a conversation with Comrade Pillai who mentions at one pount that "Change is one thing. Acceptance is another." and I think this phrase is very powerful and meaningful.
ReplyDeleteHere, Comrade is trying to convince Chacko to send Velutha off and fire him and takes this as an excuse by blaming the other workers of not accepting him because he is a Paravan. The reader doesn't trust Comrade Pillai much and the tense athmosphere makes us realize that he is probably speaking for himself and doesn't know anything about the workers' opinion. In fact, it is paradoxical to think that because Velutha is not accepted he should be dismissed because he is not the one to blame for being born a Paravan. It directly reffers to racism as Velutha is rejected because of his origins and the ones not accepting him are not being blamed with the excuse that they have always been like this and that eventhough things change, they are allowed to refuse and reject it.
Also, the theme of change is one of the major themes in post-colonialism. Most importantly, what this suggests is the idea that change is part of human life and it happens anyway but one can have trouble accepting it. It can apply to colonialism because it marked history, cultures, identities and lives of many people. Writers highlight all of this and the fact that change happened but has to be remembered before it can be accepted and that it is difficult to accept.
*I chose to
DeleteThe quote I chose to share is on page 253 of chapter 13. This is the day before Sophie's body is found floating, when the twins had asked Ammu why she was locked in her room and she yelled "careless words she hadn't meant" :
ReplyDelete“Because of you!” Ammu had screamed. “If it wasn’t for you I wouldn’t be here! None of this would have happened! I wouldn’t be here! I would have been free! I should have dumped you in an orphanage the day you were born! You’re the millstones round my neck!”
This passage is interesting for the choice of language and punctuation but also for character development. Roy is able to convey very strong feelings through her style of writing but also in dialogue. In this case, the repetition of "you" and "I wouldn't" emphasizes how she blames the twins for what is happening to her, her anger increases every time there is a punctuation mark. Therefore, the words are also accentuated by the multiple exclamation points which create an irregular rhythm.
The last sentence is also very important because of the very visual simile she makes between the twins and "millstones", words a mother is not expected to say to her own children, even if the narrator clearly explains that she did not mean them. This leads to a new step in character development as it isn't the first time Ammu is violent towards Estha and Rahel. The reader can obviously be shocked by such harsh words especially since pity has already been created for the twins because of how unfair their lives are.
I chose this passage because it is placed at one of the very important moments of the novel (when Sophie Mol's body is found) and the story starts untangling regarding the Sophie's death. Also relationships between characters continues developing as well as the relationships between the reader and all of the characters.
regarding Sophie's death*
DeleteThe passage that I chose in chapter13 is “Being with Chacko made Margaret Kochamma feel as though her soul had escaped from the narrow confines of her island country into the vast , extravagant spaces of his […] like an opened frog on a dissecting table, begging to be examined.” P.245. The reason why I chose this passage is because I believe it summarises in a lovely way this part of the story/this chapter. The power of this extract lies in the fact that it strongly encapsulates the theme of love almost specific to this chapter. Through this phrasing Arundhati Roy gives the reader imagery that is very relatable, imagery that shows the contradicting aspects of love: the idea of quitting her “island county” gives the very frightening and unexpected aspect of love seen as Margaret Atwood goes from something that Roy describes as “confined” to something “vast”. This also links to the “tiny, ordered life” that goes against the “the truly baroque bedlam” mentioned earlier on the same page, that equally reminds us of the theme of hierarchy and the caste system in India that relates to postcolonial writing. This extract also gives the aspect of throwing yourself into something new, in other words it also gives the impression of excitement that characterises love. Another reason why I like this extract is due to Roy’s unusual writing style. This might only accur to me but the mentioning of the “dissecting table” and the “opened frog” reminds me of Papachi’s scientific background and his moths.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Atwood? 😄
DeleteI chose a quotation on page 246 because it describes the nature of Chacko and Margaret’s love: “[Chacko] grew to depend on Margaret Kochamma for not depending on him. He adored her for not adoring him”. The verbs “depend” and “adored” mixed with the verbs with negations “not depending” and “not adoring” creates an opposition between Chacko’s love for Margaret and her love for him. This opposition shows their unity since their personalities are so different, it seems that they are almost complementary: together they are one. However, it also predicts an unhappy future together because of this opposition and emphasizes the unnatural aspect of their love, as if it isn’t meant to be, against nature’s laws. This theme of nature is very present in postcolonial writing. Moreover, the verb “depend” connotes a negative or even toxic relation between Chacko and Margaret. This unnatural aspect of their relation is further emphasized by the nature imagery on page 248 when her attraction to Joe is described as “a plant in a dark room[drawn] towards a wedge of light”. This imagery opposite to the idea in the previous quotation makes Margaret’s love for Joe seem as a natural instinct unlike her relation with Chacko. In addition the “dark room” where the plant is in could represent Margaret’s state of mind: she was unhappy with Chacko and all she wanted was to leave him. To conclude, the relation between Chacko and Margaret seems to be unnatural and against nature’s laws unlike her relation with Joe.
ReplyDelete“The truth is that in his years at Oxford, Chacko rarely thought of them. Too much was happening in his life and ayemenem seemed too far. The river too small. The fish too few.” page 246
ReplyDeleteI chose this passage because Roy has already written the same sentences once earlier in the book, when she first introduces Chacko, but here it takes a special meaning as we learn the reasons of his disconcern for his earlier life. The hyperboles emphasis this gap between the life he is leading in Oxford and the one he had in Ayemenem. The first one seems, thanks to the love he has for Margaret Kochamma, much more greater and “alive” than anything that Kerala could ever offer him. Indeed, now that he has tasted the British way of life and all of its modernity, how can he go back to a small backward village in a backward country? Indeed, this passage raises two postcolonial themes at once. First, as we have seen, the attraction that the colonizers way of life have on brainwashed anglophile colonised, the paradoxical love of the oppressor country that the oppressed have, in his quest for better. Second, this passage addresses the main postcolonial theme of loss of identity, as we can see Chacko rootless, cutting all ties with his past, which defines him. He will indeed lose himself in this life which seems to him higher, but the fall will only be greater.
"Her tolerance of 'Men's Needs' as far as her son was concerned, became the fuel for her unmanageable fury at her daughter" p 258.
ReplyDeleteMammachi's reaction to finding out what happened between Velutha, an Untouchable, and her daughter is disgust and rage. Whilst she had tolerated Velutha for years, the invisible line separating their castes became visible with the two lovers' transgression.
I think this quote is a good representation of the gender disparities in the Indian society. Men and even women have different expectations for each gender, and their level of tolerance for men and their mistakes is that much higher than the one they have towards women's. This aspect is much more emphasized as the Caste matter comes around. Therefore, both social and gender disparities are evoked in this quote and have much to do with post-colonialism, referring to one's treatment of who is considered to be inferior and not worthy of tolerance. The theme of transgression is also important and makes us think of all the boundaries that were crossed during colonialist eras as well as all the frontiers that were installed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“She concealed her anguish under the brisk, practical mask of a schoolteacher.” p.250
ReplyDeleteThis how Margaret Kochamma is explored in chapter 13. In fact, in my opinion, she isn't a very developed figure through the novel, but she experiences just as much tragedy as anyone. This quote represents her struggle with familial relations and obligations. According to me, this quotation is important because it contributes to the characterization of Margaret Kochamma. Mainly because of chapter 13 she is portrayed as a tragic character.
Margaret Kochamma was working as a teacher when Joe died in an accident. To cope with it, she applied a strict routine to her life and Sophie Mol's. The word "concealed" indicates her strong will to lock this memory away. Roy chose to insist on this point with the allegory of a mask. This mask is "practical" as if it's Margaret Kochamma's only purpose was to fight this past. She seems obliged to act this way, contributing to her tragic aspect. In this quote the theme of fear is introduced as it seems to drive the character of Margaret Kochamma. Additionally the adjective "brisk" creates a paradox between a lively mask and what it hides : Joe's terrible death. It emphasizes the pain she is going through with such contradictory feelings: she is seen a teared apart by the reader.
This quote is in fact very useful because it contributes to the characterization of Margaret Kochamma.
Moreover it does also very well relate to postcolonial writing. Margaret Kochamma, by asking Chacko for a divorce, bravely fought with the society. In a way she finally established an identity for herself. But, with the death of Joe we are reminded that she could not defeat destiny, and in the end of the story, she loses everything. Through this character, we can visualize a woman who put in her genuine effort to live a life of her choice. We are reminded of the power of society in colonized countries, and the tragic fate of the women who disobeyed its rules.
Charles T
*torn apart
DeleteDoesn't your last sentence relate more to Ammu than to Margaret Kochamma?
« Then the Terror took hold of him and shook the words out of him. He told Mammachi what he had seen. The story of the little boat that crossed the river night after night, and who was in it. The story of a man and a woman, standing together in the moonlight. Skin to skin.”
ReplyDeleteThis quotation represents the moment Vellya Paapen told Mammachi everything about what he had seen, led by fear and shame. It is interesting because it shows the pressure of society and the caste system on Paravans. The personalisation of the Terror, along with the capitalisation of the word, emphasize its overwhelming presence. This terrible entity “took hold of him” showing the destructive side of it and how fear can transform people in what they are not really, like making an informer out of a father. The part “shook the words out of him” is interesting because it associated the man to a tree which is being deprived from his fruits (symbol for his son?) as well as it takes the notion of moral conscience out of him. He is just a tool used by a force beyond his control. Moreover, what is interesting is the juxtaposition of this tragic build up on fear and shame with the beauty of the description of this “shameful” story. The syntax of the following sentences is actually beautiful and made very poetic with words like “night” and “moonlight”, with an emphasis on duality ‘night after night”, “a man and a woman”, “skin to skin” (nominal sentence making it stand out and emphasizing the beauty of the syntax and of the image), and an anonymization of Ammu and Velutha which makes it the more striking as it is universalized to love in general. Thus, the efforts Arundhati Roy put both to build up on fear and shame and to make the story beautiful and deeply linked with the universal notion of love highlight the paradox of this society, of this colonial era where society expectations crushed personal feelings and destroyed links (love and familial links). This notion is very linked to post-colonial literature because the wounds of this period had to be healed, often through writing and witnessing the past. “Things Fall Apart” is a poem by Jackie Kay which also describes how the pressure of society, here the ideal imposed on native populations, destroyed the links she had with her father, making them stranger to each other, as Vellya Paapen and Velutha are now.
Colonial era and post-independence
DeleteThe quote I chose to comment on is at page 267, "(...) Sophie Mol became a Memory, while The Loss of Sophie Mol grew robust and alive. Like a fruit in season. Every season."
ReplyDeleteThis quote introduces the theme of memory which we can link to post-colonial writing. Indeed, here we can see that Sophie Mol is only associated with what happened to her which entails a complete loss of her own identity. This is expressed through the paradox between "a memory" and "robust and alive". Memories can be forgotten and are not omnipresent in our minds whereas the terms "robust" and "alive" show that the it still have an impact on the present of the persons who are alive. This omnipresence of Sophie Mol's death in the character's minds is shown by the simile as it is compared to a fruit that never fades away season after season. This simile is really effective as it shows that even when the season is hostile to the development of fruits, it manages to subsist. Consequently, no matter how much the characters try to forget about the events it can never be erased and becomes a part of their history which they need to put up with on the daily.
This is linked to post-colonial writing as it shows how one event can, by its intensity, destroy all the other memories that existed before. We can thus see a contrast between the large amount of time it takes to create a common culture and identity and the shortness and suddenness of events that destroy everything that had been previously built. Consequently, this contrast can be linked to the sentence that is repeated many times in the book "everything can change in a day".
“Vellya Paapen began to cry. Half of him wept. Tears welled up in his real eye and shone on his black cheek. With his other eye he stared stonily ahead. An old Paravan, who had seen the Walking Backwards days, torn between Loyalty and Love.”
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because it represents a dilemma which is based on recurrent elements which entails complications throughout the book (the caste system, love, customs). Here Vellya Paapen has to choose between his family or the rules and laws that were engraved into him as an Untouchable. This dilemma is rather complicated as it forces Vellya to either renounce to his past and to his roots (which form his Identity) to save his son, or to cast away his love and save his years of “service” and “Loyalty” towards the other castes. A battle between his own past and Velutha’s future unfolds inside him. However this quote can also give an idea of how “customs” give birth to a great pressure from the society on unmarried or divorced women and untouchables and of their importance in India. The suffering of Vellya is pictured here through the way his sorrow and fear are tearing his face apart: his fake eye making him unable to cry normally, only one eye weeps. Therefor his entire being seems to be torn apart by two very strong emotions, while “half of him wept” the other part remains impassive. Such a visual disarray and despair shown on Vellya Paapen’s face conveys to the reader the state of chaos Vellya is going through, and foreshadows at the same time, that Sophie Mole’s death will have more impact than simple mournings and a few accusations from Margaret Kochamma’s to the 2 siblings.
*renounce his past and his roots
DeleteI like this quotation too. It echoes p. 151, Rahel being torn between love and duty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Inspector Thomas Mathew, receding behind his Air India moustache, understood perfectly. He had a Touchable wife, two Touchable daughters – whole Touchable generations waiting in their Touchable wombs...” (p. 259)
ReplyDeleteI couldn't resist choosing this ironic input from the narrator, which comes right after Baby Kochamma explained to the police officer what she believes about Velutha and Ammu's relationship.
The use of capitalization, in the first sentence, makes the inspector sound like someone very respectable and important. This results in a sense of hierarchy, one that declares him superior to Untouchables (who are not mentioned here—only omnipresent in the implications this extract carries). In the second sentence, capitalization is used in the repeated adjective “Touchable”. The repetition is also emphasized by the [t] alliteration, which gives the repeated word a brutal and unnatural aspect. This contributes to the narrator’s satiric tone, along with her use of irony through the adverb “perfectly”, as she goes on to prove that in fact, the only thing the inspector understands is what he sees and thinks from a privileged position. The theme of perspective is developed, but here as something harmful. As a Touchable man, he is placed high in the hierarchy set up by the caste system, and doesn’t need to question himself. He doesn’t need to understand the situation, because it doesn’t affect him. This apathy is a major factor in Velutha’s death. Arundhati thus skillfully denounces everyday political corruption, showing that, in an unfair political or social system, privileged and powerful people keep their position and perpetuate injustice because they are unaffected by any repercussion the system might have. I think this idea is central to both post-colonial literature and the novel, which is partially why I chose this extract, but I also love the ironic tone; I think it creates a complicity with the reader which conveys the idea much more powerfully.
The fact that Arundhati Roy came up with the word "Touchable" makes the irony all the stronger.
DeleteThe quotation I chose to talk about is actually the title of chapter 13, “The Pessimist and the Optimist”. This is first of all because it relates directly to the chapter, as a reference to the story of the two twins that Chacko tells Margaret Kochamma in the café at Oxford. The shared experience of this story is what binds Chacko and Margaret together. It gives rise to a relationship which represents the clash of cultures between the English woman and the Indian man, which is telling because of the stereotype of English people (thus Margaret) being pessimists, whereas Chacko is an eternal optimist. Therefore the phrase reveals more about the characters and their relationships in a post-colonial context.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the story of the optimist and the pessimist reminds us in an eerie way of Rahel and Estha, who we might be able to associate respectively with Pete and Stuart (remember: “Anything can happen to anyone”…). But more than representing Ammu’s children, the title of the chapter seems to reveal the underlying duality which is a feature of The God of Small Things, and to a greater extent the whole post-colonial writing, based as it is on opposition – in culture, in class and in gender.
Finally, the title also suggests the power of thought in the representation of events; that is to say that perhaps it is our way of perceiving things that influences how much they impact us, rather than the things themselves. This ties in with the theme of responsibility, and the point of view of the children which we find throughout the novel.
"They did what they had to do, the two old ladies. Mammachi provided the passion. Baby Kochamma the plan. Kochu Maria was their midget Lieutenant. " p 258
ReplyDeleteThis quote comes just after Vellya Paapen has revealed the relationship between Ammu and Velutha. Baby Kochamma and Mammachi are trying to find a way to save the reputation of their family. Right before the scene is very chaotic and there seems to be no solution however the reaction of those "two old ladies" is organised. Indeed they elaborate a plan with an unseen pragmatisme until then. The "passion" that is spoke about is the beginning of the plan, the reason of its existence that Mammachi through her rage will give. Then in perfect coordination Baby Kochamma makes the plan that Kochu Maria is going to apply. This following of actions is mechanic one leading to the other, unstoppable until it ends.Moreover during this elaboration, the three characters seem detached from their usual association and become the gearwheels of a machine that is going to lead to Velutha's death. Their scheme and its terrible repercussions is explored with the short sentences that Roy is using, relating the sense of mechanism behind their action and so the lack of humanity too. Furthermore the three last sentences have a similar construction that convey a change in the characters as well as their association. This passage can be link to post-colonialism as an innocent is scapegoated in order to save the reputation and domination of a stronger force exactly like Velutha is taking the blame for the reputation of the family. To conclude it brings up the theme of faith that is explored in lots of post-colonialism works as Velutha's death depends on his father's loyalty to Mammachi and on the fact that he saw them when he shouldn't have.
*scorn / contempt (despise is a verb)
ReplyDeletePage 246 : "He was deeply in love with his love for Margaret Kochamma and had no room in his heart for anyone else."
ReplyDeleteTo me, this quotation really illustrates Chacko's character and state of mind. We see that he is in love with the idea of loving Margaret, not actually with her. It seems to have a broader meaning to him than she first thought : it allowed him to feel really Englishm since dating a white woman would mean that he had succeeded his transformation. But the fact that he loved the idea of loving her went totally against their relationship, since she loved him or being who he really was, whereas he wanted to become someone totally different. I liked this quotation because I thought it had a deep postcolonial feel to it, as we see that Chacko is totally overwhelmed by his Anglophile personnality, and does not realise that he is on the verge of ruining his relationship with Margaret.
"She concealed her anguish under the brisk, practical mask of a schoolteacher. The Stern, schoolteacher-shaped Hole in the Universe (who sometimes slapped)."
ReplyDeleteI chose this passage from page 237 (of my hardcover edition) not only because it is one of the few times Margaret Kochamma is developed as a character, but also because I find it to be a great example of Roy's writing style. Indeed, Roy presents Margaret's job as a schoolteacher as just being a "mask" that she uses to hide her pain from Joe's death. Furthermore, the person hiding behind this mask has seemingly disappeared or evaporated (which perhaps explains the sibilance, imitating the sound of a gas escaping), leaving behind a "schoolteacher-shaped Hole in the Universe": Margaret Kochamma has metaphorically vanished,and her function has assumed her life. I would like to think that, instead of being Roy's usual somewhat random capitalization of letters, the "H" and the "U" of "Hole in the Universe" are capitalized because it is Margaret Kochamma's new name, her new identity. This relates to the post-colonial theme of identity, which is very important and present at this part of the novel as not only Margaret experiences great losses, and she is not the only one who's grasp on her own identity is put to the test (e.g. Ammu's identity as a rather highborn girl is put to the test by her love for an Untouchable).
"It is unreasonable to expect a person to remember what she didn't know had happen." p.265
ReplyDeleteI think this quotation, which is quite ironical, sums up in an effective way the events of the chapter, contrasting with them. Indeed, in this chapter, we have several events that would be considered unreasonable according to this quote. For exemple, Baby Kochamma blames Velutha for his relationship with Ammu, inventing a story that as never occurred. Hence, her story is purposely deformed and invented but the police officer believes it anyway; this also develops the post-colonial theme of hierarchy linked with the social classes. Moreover, another contrasting event of this chapter with the quote is the blame put on Estha for the death of Sophie Mol. Margaret Kochamma believes that "Estha was somehow responsible for Sophie Mol's death" (p.164) and his name is repeated four time in p.164, which reinforces this idea. Throughout the whole book, Estha is blamed for this death, even if nobody really knows what had happen. Thus, according to the quotation, Baby Kochamma and Margaret Kochamma are "unreasonable" since the both "remember" things that aren't true.