Complicity

Arundhati Roy says that she offers no thesis in her novel (interview), yet does go on to say that we are all complicit, and none of us are wholly innocent. However she intends for Estha and Rahel to be understood as heroic figures in the novel by her claim that at "least they were honest enough to admit it." Reflecting on this, they are in touch with their consciences, especially when the "choice" is offered at the end to save their mother from disgrace, since Velutha will die anyway-their is no fair choice. Yet they still feel accountable, their hearts have connected to the idea that they loved Velutha to death. There are so many examples of the unforseen events, formative experiences, circumstances of birth, economic and social forces, that seem to sweep people up with their momentum making choices seem almost irrelevant. Almost. As Roy fills in history's gaps, makes it personal, infused with loss, beauty, and innocence she does history justice. We can see the choices people have, those they do not, and those they cannot see. We see what shapes them, and few situations are black and white. There are overt "bad guys" and romantic heroes, yet, their individual agency is always competing with the forces that shaped them. It is in this sense, I think, that she offers no thesis. When the police go to beat Velutha she cites the fear of a loss of order, misogyny, their act only an "inoculation," compared to what is done to more threatening historical figures. She shows their human side, the fear and hate that drives them implicates the entire society. Or, as Chacko alternates from party member to party enemy, never able to be either, then finally through personal grief resigns all of it, tragedy finally makes the man choose. Comrade Pilai sacrifices Velutha, making the party's ideals meaningless, choosing the party over the low caste man that risked himself for the cause. Of course, love itself does not escape, it must be contextualized, should it be judged, can it be considering the cost either way? Roy's acknowledgment of beauty, the humanized details, only makes the horrific and unjust History more palpable-and the whole more realistic.

Innocence vs Corruption

I've been thinking a lot about the differences between the corrupt and the innocent in the novel, and what defines them. To me, Velutha is innocent. Sure, he is part of the march, but it is hard to see a man fighting for his freedom as corrupt. The breaking of the love laws does not destroy his innocence either because it is an act of love. He loves Ammu and her children as if they were family and refuses to accept society's fake laws as truth. Likewise, the children love him more than they love most of the people in their immediate family. The innocence of children often keeps prejudices at bay. They do not see lines of race and caste like the adults do in the novel as well as in society. Velutha treats them with love and affection, and that is all that matters to them. Velutha's death and Baby Kochamma's corruption of Estha and Rahel only furthers Velutha's and the children's innocence. They are abused by the system of corruption in a way that makes me think about society's corruption and the differences between accepting the corruption or claiming innocence.

History's Henchmen

I have been thinking about the tragic separation of the twins and how this parallels with the caste structure, where people are separated from one another through the arbitrary dictates of history, man's need to impose order. The way Roy describes the relationship between the "two-egg" twins renders the word close an absurd understatement; for they are two halves of the same soul, they dream the same dreams, and Rahel knows Estha is standing on the other side of the door without him knocking. Throughout the novel there is a prevalent fear of people being this close to one another, revealed most explicitly through the caste system and religion but also within the sphere of inter-personal relations, we perceive the need to keep people at a distance. The twins were to young to recognize how dangerous it can be too love someone too much, they did not understand how the 'wrong kind of love' can become an impediment to survival. Indeed, for Velutha love was a death sentence, as well as for Ammu. But what happened to the twins exemplifies what this separation of humanity and restricted intimacy is doing to our souls. We walk around with half a soul, resigning ourselves to the fear, letting the fear win. And then this engenders anger and that in turn hatred for others, because we need to feel something, and histories henchmen march on.

Depersonalized

What I've been finding most interesting about the novel so far is how it effectively uses depersonalization to make traumatic events seem more familiar. Strangely, the way Roy uses it doesn't seem cursory or half-hearted, but in my opinion is softens the blow of some really terrifying events. Estha's encounter with the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man for instance -- there isn't a hint of emotion in the pages that detail Estha's ordeal (and I'm trying to figure out if Estha was just really naive or if Roy was implying that Estha knew what was happening but was too terrified to do anything about it). Everything in those few pages are written down with a cold, aloof, logical perspective. I've been reading about how the public reacted to this novel when it first came out in 1996, and this particular scene was the source of a lot of vitriol, it seemed. It makes me wonder -- if Roy had written it in a different way, would the public's reaction have been different? If Estha had fought against the Lemondrink Man, if his emotions throughout the scene were accurately chronicled so that we could empathize with him and we could say "Well, at least Roy was on Estha's side" -- would the reaction have been different? Instead, Roy chose to depersonalize the hell out of that scene, and it made for a very uncomfortable reading experience.

Prompt

Please consider the questions that we've been asking in class about aesthetics and poverty (or caste, class, etc.). Why does Arundhati Roy write the novel in this particular way? What is gained from a view of tragic events of "history" in which beautifying the overlooked details helps us to tell the story differently (than the official version of history)? And how is blame apportioned in this aesthetic? Is anyone to blame for what happens to Velutha? Everyone?

In this weeks novel I noticed that Roy's depiction of Velutha was something that needed further examination. In our discussion last week the question arose about why Velutha was given so many great traits and yet was to remain an untouchable?
I thought that the main reason why Roy did this was to show how incredibly inescapable social labels can be. Velutha is beautiful and skilled and yet he will never be able to move beyond what people have made him out to be.
Having thought of this, I began to compare to the questions of poverty that have been brought up in class, in particular, can someone escape a life of poverty? As we have seen in the short fiction and in Q & A, poverty is escapable, at least more so than escaping caste labels. It seems that Roy has given Velutha every tool, every method, to escape a life of an untouchable yet he cannot. Swarup gave Ram many chances to escape poverty and through many failures, in the end, Ram made it out and lived happily ever after. Velutha did not even live, happily or sadly, ever after.
It is interesting to put these two things side by side and compare which one is worse than the other. But through all the readings we have discussed in this class it seems that caste takes the cake.

Repitition

Roy's technique of repeating certain words and phrases throughout the entirety of the novel tie the many different stories in the novel together. The viewpoints of the different character's also become related. The repetition also helps the ultimate story unfold.

It is hard to forget the important moments that lead up to the tragedy of Sophie Mol's and Velutha's deaths because certain phrases are constantly repeated. Instances one would like to forget such as the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man are brought to attention again and again. Moments that shape the characters are brought back to remind us that everything is connected.

One of my favorite examples of this is in the phrase "Not old. Not young. But a viable die-able age." This is first introduced in describing Ammu's death. Later on it describes the twins," Now they were. Old enough. Old. A viable die-able age." This relates the mother to her children in a very important way. Throughout the novel the young and the old have died. So, this phrasing makes me wonder what makes "a viable die-able age." Maybe that is Roy's point. That at every age death is possible, but sometimes it is less tragic than others.

The constant repetition of this of this phrase as well as others ties the story together in a smooth, musical way. The story as a whole carries on, but parts come back to remind that it is all tied together. History is not one single event but many tied together. We see this through the memories of the many different characters that are repeated in small phrases.

Choice

The God of Small Things is a story of the walls that define the actions of their characters. The walls are many and the available response few. Roy's depiction of choice is interesting in that there is very little.

The God of Small Things as a charcter of Ammu's dream is limited to one action at a time and Ammu embraces him and his beauty. He is in a way relatable. She is trapped, hemmed in by her family and harried by the Love Laws. This trapped aspect of her, always waiting to lash out like some caged beast is perhaps more cognizant of its own walls than she would recognize. In other words, Ammu is more impotent than she realizes as she would come to know in the end when Velutha is more or less murdered and herself cast out. Nowhere left to go years later, she dies alone.

In turn, Baby Kochamma is deluded with choice. Fooling herself, she believes her love lost was her decision. She has the most mobility in terms of action and consequence within the narrative but is hemmed in by her views of who should be loved and how that love should behave, views which turn serpentine and deceitful in the end to the condemnation of an innocent man (clean of everything but caste).

Roy's is a hard novel in parts and as it wound down i had very little choice but to continue its tale. For much of the book the reader feels like they're drowning in the author's circular narrative. In the end, beautifully, I felt myself washed ashore.

Prompt 4

For this week, you might consider how The God Of Small Things relies on a linguistic "defamiliarization technique" (Brecht) in order to draw attention to language as simultaneously infinitely (or "infinnately") malleable and impervious to manipulation. What is the relationship between the ways that the novel attempts to use language (to reference memory, history, culture, etc.) and the way that the novel deals with issues of tragedy (caste, poverty, sexism, etc.)?

The intricacies of Ammu's dream, which begins on page 205, are of extreme interest to me. The way in which "The God of Small Things," later accepted by Ammu to be representative of Velutha, is constrained in numerous ways within the fantasy presents a beautifully allegorical depiction of the societal limitations placed on Paravans. The figure in the dream only has one arm. Shadows surround the cheerful man, but they are only visible to him (for the moment, let's disregard the narrator's authorial display of omniscience in detailing this aspect of the dream). Though he seems to desire a multiplicity of actions, the constricting effects of the crowd of violin wielding spectators coupled with an internalized knowledge of untouchable possibilities leave him with the option of choosing one. For Ammu, she knows that the liberty of her actions is much different, however she stops short of acting upon any of the impulses she experiences in the dream sequence. Roy's illustration of the opposing templates of choice within the caste system is quite poignant. For "The God of Small Things," there are many choices to be viewed, but only one can be chosen. Dependent upon the choice -hold her, kiss her, see her, feel her- no other action would be possible, or even necessary because the repercussions of his insolence would be debilitating, if not fatal. Ammu's situation is quite the opposite. Like Velutha, her actions are governed by the spectators and their prejudiced expectations, but in this fantasy the choice is hers, unlike Velutha. I find this dream very well illustrates today's discussion of the obstacles facing Velutha in a caste system in spite of his near perfect character.

Brushed Over

In short fiction, class and poverty along with feelings, moods, and attitudes are represented in a more simplified way. An example of this is in the short story The Night Train at Deoli’ when Ruskin runs into the girl at the train station. As he purchases a basket from the girl he “hardly dar[es] to touch her fingers”. Later in the story, we find out that Ruskin develops an emotional relationship for the girl who he previously did not want to touch and even goes out of his way to ask the girls location when he cannot find her on his next stop through the town. At the beginning of this short story, the feeling arises that the girl is of lower class and in poverty selling baskets for her “living” because of the fact that he did not want to touch her possibly “dirty” hands and the fact that her “feet were bare and her clothes were old”. Towards the end of the story when Ruskin develops emotions for the girl, it seems as if he was simply acting in an immature way as if the girl would have given him “cooties”. I feel that short stories allow for poverty to go under looked.

Brushed Over

In short fiction, class and poverty along with feelings, moods, and attitudes are represented in a more simplified way. An example of this is in the short story The Night Train at Deoli’ when Ruskin runs into the girl at the train station. As he purchases a basket from the girl he “hardly dar[es] to touch her fingers”. Later in the story, we find out that Ruskin develops an emotional relationship for the girl who he previously did not want to touch and even goes out of his way to ask the girls location when he cannot find her on his next stop through the town. At the beginning of this short story, the feeling arises that the girl is of lower class and in poverty selling baskets for her “living” because of the fact that he did not want to touch her possibly “dirty” hands and the fact that her “feet were bare and her clothes were old”. Towards the end of the story when Ruskin develops emotions for the girl, it seems as if he was simply acting in an immature way as if the girl would have given him “cooties”. I feel that short stories allow for poverty to go under looked.

Silly Slumdog, Dreams Aren't For You

Poverty is always hardest hitting when it is described from the perspective of children. In Q&A, specifically, one can see how poverty most affects the daily lives of children at the beginning of the chapter, “A Thought for the Crippled,” within which the younger Ram recounts the time he spent in the Delhi Juvenile Home for Boys.

At one point in this chapter, Ram describes how he and the other boys in the Juvenile Home like to watch Hindi films on Sundays. He describes the viewing as an escape to a “fantasy world [for them], but we never got carried away by it. We knew we could never have a life like Amitabh Bachchan’s or Shahrukh Khan’s. The most we could aspire to was to become one of those who held power over us… The juvenile home diminished us in our own eyes” (p. 75).

By the novel’s end, we know that Ram succeeds in ascending up out of his impoverished state, as do Smita/Gudiya and Salim; this “success” is basically respective characters’ rewards for being “good” and surviving turbulent times. But these are the only characters who ascend. All the other young children described in the home are never mentioned again. At one point, Ram suggests that for them, the Home might be “heaven” compared to where they came from. It seems as though the majority of kids displaced by poverty into Homes like these become complacent and do not aspire to more because they feel they can’t.

Poverty of the Feminine

The subverted imagery and perspectivism within "Sheesha Ghat" and "Gifts" evokes through their subtlety the intention of the authors to illuminate the poverty of the feminine. It should be remembered that throughout history, whether upper class, or middle, untouchable or Brahmin, their exists always another division, being the inequality of the sexes. The young girl of Sheesha Ghat, isolated, and maginalized from even the poverty of the town, appears free, untainted by society. And through whimsical descriptions of her beauty, given to us through her physically lithe control of her boat, a unique and delicate charm pervades the story. Though Bibi as some kind of powerful grand dame breaks the mold of suppressed female, it is unclear how much of her mythical status is conferred to the girl, in other words there is no proof of her own agency. The story of Parya's birth has been romanticized, and strangely extended-this girl, born under water, like some ethereal nymph, has never touched land. We are encouraged to appreciate her through this lense, this transcendent gentle female until we cannot. Her suicide brutally subverts the idea of the sea as her playground, her freedom, and becomes her prison-like obstacle and barrier to confront. Her life cannot sustain her, and this act throws into question everything that was so comfortable to believe about her. How great was her suffering (we know she cannot even swim) for her to attempt to find freedom this way? Most importantly, she slips into the very water that appeared to give her freedom, romantically misunderstood even by the boy's final witness-she leaves the world quietly, without a fight, submissive, and then gone.
Within "Gifts" the subverted images also become profound symbols for repression of women. The caring for saris, preparation of dosais and halvas, represent tradition and identity for generations of women. There is an inherent goodness also represented here through their skill, and commitment. As the modern woman experiences their home, she longs for it, wishes to keep the nurturing with her, suggesting a universality of female experience. However, the dark underbelly of their oppression cannot be ignored, they exist solely to serve and live in physical and emotional prisons as well. The sea of Chandra's childhood dreams by the end rises to a "poisonous blue," the sari eclipses and overwhelms with representation of how these women have adapted (to be able to praise the religious devotion of an abusive husband, the pride of their children, moving as if switched on, etc.). Thus Lakshmi renders the halvas, both as a lovingly prepared gift but also as the symbol of repression, whose glistening ghee becomes the glint of sharply illuminated truth.

Illegal schmillegal

In the short stories I felt that the idea of poverty was not a big deal, or at least not as much as it was in Q & A. The short stories focused more on storytelling than in portraying a sense of poverty in India. Although there was one instance in which something in Swarup's novel is discussed in full and in Chandra's story is hinted at which is the sense that the life of a peasant is an illegal existance.
In Chandra's short story there was a passage that described some people cheering on the criminal instead of cheering for the police. This particular scene was one that reminded me of Ram when he said that the police would come and arrest you for living an illegal life, a poor life. The police are associated with the corruption that money brings about in people and it is clearly portrayed in Swarup's novel and doing things that are illegal are just something one has to do to survive. In Chandra's story the people know that Gaitonde was a criminal that did illegal things and should not be encouraged to continue that kind of lifestyle, but living a life that is seen as illegal is something that peasants can definitely identify with. They only see a person that is trying to make a decent living for himself and if the corrupt authority deems it as illegal then they will accept him because they now share a common experience. It is a minor passage in the story but I think that it is worth taking a second look at as well as recognizing that illegal life can be praised if the other options will give you nothing.

Delhi High Court rules on slum dwellers

I thought that the following news story might be of interest to you (especially in light of our discussions about how poverty and crime are turned into synonyms):

NEW DELHI: Observing that “jhuggi dwellers are not to be treated as secondary citizens and are entitled to no less an access to basic survival needs as any other citizen”, the Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that every eligible slum dweller has to be relocated to a place with proper civic amenities before being evicted from a piece of public land.

A different Aesthetic, Personal

The depiction of poverty in our Vintage Book seems much more personal than the portrayal in Slumdog or Q&A. Here it is not a backdrop. The various authors use the concept less as an aesthetic and more as a setting. The difference is perhaps in where the drama plays out. Whereas in Q&A the lead character has come from a varied background. There is almost an insolence/ sarcasm in Ram's question "What business did a penniless waiter have participating in a brain quiz?" He has lived in many aspects of slum life but his personal background is not necessarly that. He is at once a Slumdog and an outsider able to rise above.
In the Vintage Book the stories are set within poverty. The short stories do not portray it as a film background to a larger story, but rather use poverty as the setting for their various narratives. They live it. They deal with characters that have come of age in this state and will likely never leave it. In 'Gifts' the young girl's dream is to marry and to have 'snacks' in a restaurant. In 'Arjun' we end the story with Ketu in a drunken frenzy of merriment. 'Sheesha Ghat' is a mysterious yet barren stretch of sand and water. 'Siege in Kailashpada' shows a boss's first brutal steps toward power and his subsequent suicide. These are stories within poverty. It is not an aesthetic in terms of a backdrop to the main drama; the state of poverty is the state within which these tales are told.

The Devices of Pithy

Oftentimes the pithy of short fiction creates a much more dramatic presentation of its intended meaning or questioning, especially when comparing it to the longer novels. Because of their length, short stories are confronted with the problem of developing substance, reaching a climax, and reaching some sort of resolution (or lack there of) in a very limited space. This methodology, or choice of form, causes the authors to move a story with swiftness and economy, rapidly weaving the reader through multiple emotional struggles and ordeals that are much more developed in novels. I don't find the shorter stories in a position where they need resort to a more simplistic level of material, but their allegories, when used, seem much more overt. From my limited experience with Indian short fiction, the ideas regarding responsibility and social uplift are always shaped as a complicated doubt of how one should deal with modernity. I feel it is difficult for me to draw too many conclusion considering the short list of examples I have to draw from.

Poverty as an Unknown.

I think that one way that the short stories look at poverty is as an unknown, a dark continent if you will. It is mysterious, mystified and even alluring. In Ruskin Bond’s The Night Train at Deoli, poverty is even a place and a stop on the train. I am not saying that this is a failing though the works. Rather I am observing it as only one part of a greater whole. Also I think it says as much about me as a read as the texts themselves.
The germ of this idea came to mind during our discussion of Masud’s Sheesha Ghat when someone said perhaps on of the reasons the story was confusing was the ability to portray poverty is somehow limited. The texts’ narrators always seem to be looking for poverty. In A Horse for the Sun, Murthy is returning home and one aspect of his encounter of poverty is as a dialog trying to synthesis the material conditions of poverty and behavior that furthers them with Venkata’s contentment and spiritual richness. Ultimately the only way to finish the story is with the description of a moment of spiritual transcendence of the material circumstances. There is a similarly motif of poverty as the unknown in Lakshmi’s Gifts. Here main character is researching the lives of poor women one thing the story centers around is a sense of difference and the narrators inability to understand the woman she is visiting.
Poverty is a lack and moreover a constant lack that pervades the everyday. Therefore it is very hard to write without comparing to the wealth, power and luxury that is on the other extreme. Poverty seems to be written as a snapshot like O&A portrayal of women washing dishes in sewage water or shanty town or poverty is portrayed as an abuse such as the oppression or suffering of the poor. At least these are the ways authors have seemed to drive the point of poverty home, to make it noticeable. This notion would explain why a year of the narrators life goes by with so little description in Sheesha Ghat.

Short Stories' View of Poverty

In many of the stories we have read this week, poverty is expressed through clashes between the impoverished and those who have gained middle class standing. The Anantha Murthy, Ambai, and Ashok Banker stories stand out to me the most in this light.

In the Murthy story, the narrator has trouble understanding the life of Venkata. The way he lives is foreign to him. In many ways we see the boring life of the middle class contrasting with the free spirited life of the poor. Although it is clear that Venkata's family has its struggles, it appears that he is happier than the narrator. He is able to escape life and live in his own world. The narrator thinks this is no way to live, but he cannot convince Venkata of this. It is as if Venkata's free spirit is a mask he puts on to hide from the bills and troubles facing him in the real world.

In the Ambai story, there is more focus on women. The narrator is clearly a feminist who believes the women she speaks with are being held in captivity. She does not understand the way they live. In her interviews she hits road blocks because the women are not used to speaking about what they want due to the thrashing that will certainly follow. Although the narrator is seen as a free, strong woman, she lacks many of the things the other women embody. She cannot cook doasais the way Anni and Chandra can. Her hair looks more worn than Anni her senior. While it is true that the narrator has escaped the bonds of womanhood, she has also managed to neglect the customs.

The Ashok Banker story again shows an old friend who shows up unchanged. When Jay encounters Mittal, he immediately begins to compare and contrast their appearance. Jay is proud that he is wearing his best suit and smoking expensive cigarettes. He is only brought down off of his high horse when Mittal explains that he saved Jay and Jay's mother from complete disgrace. The power shift that this creates is unsettling to Jay. The idea of owing Mittal, the poor, unchanged friend stops Jay in his tracks. He seems to have lost sight of the people-first concept and replaced it with money-first. He is only brought out of his stupor when he receives the check the next day.

All three of these stories show some of the problems with poverty but also the blindness of the middle class. Although they are short, the in-depth scenes highlight the clashes between the haves and the have-nots. It also appears that the poor are leading the better life in the end of these stories. If they are not leading a better life, they are at least leading a truer one.

PROMPT 3

For this week, please consider the ways that class and poverty are represented in short fiction. What emerges differently in terms of feelings, moods, and attitudes? Does short fiction necessarily require more simplified problematics about class and poverty? Do different ideas about responsibility and social uplift work themselves out here?

Rural poverty in India

I thought some of you might find this piece on rural poverty in Meghalaya (a state in Northeast India) of interest.

A Soldier's Tale

The chapter, "A Soldier's Tale," provides a couple of depictions of the slums and poverty. First, the description of the bunker assigned to each neighborhood. The bunker in Raj's area is under the school and is a "large, rectangular hall with subdued lighting. It has a faded and dusty red carpet on the floor, and the only furniture consists of a couple of rickety chairs and an old metal table, on which stands a fourteen-inch television set" (166). The image suggests dank and claustrophobic surroundings that the families cannot complain about because it is a freely provided space, ultimately for their safety. But the narration suggests the assigned families share rumors about a more comfortable bunker in nearby Pali Hill that "has a thirty-two-inch TV, Dunlopillo cushions, and air-conditioning'' (167). Even in war, the bunkers reflect a better world, higher status, and secure economic standing.
Also, Balwant Singh, the soldier, provides an image of poverty. He is described as "an old Sikh on crutches...He is thin and tall, with a small, whiskery mustache on a weather-beaten face" (169). Balwant is old, alone, and disabled. After his desertion, his family is killed and he loses a leg. He may have been able to regain some semblance of a life after desertion but his disability immobilizes him in a constant state of poverty. Balwant's condition ties into the descriptions of Maman's street orphans. The kids that were disabled will always have to beg to survive. For a moment, Balwant's stories provide him with an audience and he is status rises from old cripple to war veteran. The community rallies around him but Balwant chooses to take is life the real story is revealed. Instead of moving to a new place, Balwant chooses to die because he can never rise above his desertion and disability.

A Dichotomy of Poverty

In order to adequately discuss poverty as represented by Swarup’s novel, I find that you must first acknowledge the dichotomy with which it is conveyed. In many of the instances where the reader receives a detailed description of Dharavi or any of the chawls, poverty is described with a set piece of archetypes which quickly begin to distance the audience from the depravity that Swarup initiates but soon dilutes with formulaic expectations. The efficacy of those passages become desensitized through their repitition, which very well could have been Swarup’s intent. However, when we as readers experience poverty through the mind of Ram rather than just his eyes (meaning his personal dialogue or emotional condition rather than an overt depiction of the poor), a much more humanistic value can be found in the writing. On page 135, Ram says in a fit of doubt and frustration, “A sense of defeat has begun to cloud my mind. I feel that the specific purpose for which I came to Mumbai is beyond me. That I am swimming against the tide. That powerful currents are at work which I cannot overcome.” Immediately preceding this passage is a description of Dharavi’s inhabitants and their way of going about life. When other people’s sense of poverty is being discussed the perspective is that of a bird flying over the slum weightlessly watching the seemingly helpless. In the lines quoted above, Ram is at last feeling overwhelmed by this grand obstacle that is poverty. I find this particular portion of a passage of venting to be very telling and different from most in the novel because Ram is usually represented as slightly above the abject. His rootless background and lifestyle keeps his mind from ever feeling usurped by the suppressive scenarios he revolves in and out of throughout the story. Conveniently, this passage works all to well with this week’s prompt because the very next string of sentences in Ram’s stream of thought is as follows: “But then I hear my beloved Nita’s cries and Neelima Kumari’s sobs, and my willpower returns. I have to get onto that show. And till that happens, I will continue to listen to the stories of the drunkards in this city.” First there is the love that will drive him beyond the “obstacle” of poverty. The next two sentences effectively display the level that Swarup situates Ram in regard to the people he lives with and works around. Ram is above the obstacle, not engulfed by it.

-Drew Moore

Tale of Two Writing Styles

The description in chapter three of the Chawls that Ram and Salim and the Shantarams live in provides a good insight to the novels attitude towards poverty. The selection set in the crawls (and perhaps the out house) is the most intimate description of poor folks in the whole novel. The neighbors have names like Mr. and Mrs. Gokhale or Bapat and humanizing stories. They are not the faceless mothers washing the dishes in sewer water. However this is not a scene of the extreme poverty that the heroes are fleeing or come from but rather a middle class space (albeit on the edge of that category). It is not a place were people “suffer” but rather “simply live” (56). After escaping Maman, this is already a sort of upward mobility for the boys. Especially when one considers the contrast between the boys and the other tenets. The most obvious is drunken Gudiya’s gradual transformation from middle-class provider into a monster. However there is also the negative portrayal of the girls of the Chawl as fat and stupid (56) or the Bapat’s relationship that swings from domestic abuse to noisy love-making(58). This portrayals avoid that Dickensian pitfall of romanticizing poverty. They do show poverty as damaging instead of ennobling. There is no Bob Cratchit or Tiny Tim preaching forgiveness and generosity of spirit. However in their brevity I worry these portrayals are trite and patronizing and go to the other extreme of dehumanizing the poor. Especially when one considers how Ram and Salim never seemed touched by the grind of lower-middle class poverty of barely holding on that degrades everyone else in the Crawls.

Moral

There is a disconnect in the actions of our hero Ram, and I put the following down to the desperation of his life, at least in moments of crisis. He kills (attacks) Gudiya's father. He shoots a man on a train. He abandons his best friend. He steals money from his employer. He repeatedly engages a prostitute. He enters a gameshow with the express intention of killing its host. Ram is our hero and while these actions so stated do not paint a lovely picture of his character, each was done with the correct motive to absolve him of any crime.

Perhaps that is what brings me back to this theme while analyzing Q&A. The character of Ram ostensibly climbs out of the slums through the quiz show. He is largely a moral character and is blessed with luck, but he is not part of the slums. He is not the man who's son died of pneumonia from playing in tap water. Ram is constantly moving in and out of success and flirting with a middle class life just before he loses everything once again. He is rewarded with luck on the show for making the right choices in each of the flashbacks he describes to Smita though the 'moral' choices he makes in each instance lead to actions that in other lights would be considered heinous. It is in Ram's reaction to the desperation about him and his motivation to see done what he believes is 'right' that we learn that 'moral' in this context does not necessitate good.

its all about how you look at it

My favorite depiction of the slums is not so much a description as it is a state of mind. I am referring to the scene where Gudiya is about to get molested by her father and Ram feels the need to tell somebody. In this particular scene, Ram goes to get the landlord, Mr. Ramakrishna, so that he can prevent Gudiya from getting hurt. It is Mr. Ramakrishna’s response to Ram that really put into perspective the way that people of the slums view themselves. He says on pg. 68, “We Indians have a sublime ability to see the pain and misery around us and yet remain unaffected by it.” The whole paragraph is a good example, but this quote sums it up nicely. This idea that pain and misery are an inevitable part of the slums so all that they can do is ignore them really sets the tone for what is to come in the rest of the novel. We see rape, torture, and very poor living conditions in the slums and the only way to cope with it is to pretend it doesn’t exist. This adds to what we talked about in class about the incapacity of poor people to ascend from the slums because if that is the mindset of the poor then it there is no motivation to change how they live.
Juxtapose to this view is Ram. He does not ignore the pain or the misery. In fact, I think he takes the pain and misery and uses it as his motivation to leave his life in the slums. Ram remembers these moments in his life that have caused him pain and he uses it to answer a question on the show, which will eventually lift him out of his miserable life and into the life he so fondly dreamed of on the train before he was robbed.

Alls well that ends well

The depiction of poverty that struck me as the most poignant at first glance was the condition Gudiya's family was reduced to upon entering life in the chawl. It is heartbreaking to see two women dependent upon a man who is slowly losing his mind to alcohol. We get the sense that there is no way out of this situation for Gudiya and her mother because in the grips of poverty there is nowhere to turn for help. Moreover, they have no way of supporting themselves without becoming more debased than they are presently and we already know that poor people can not appeal to authority figures for any assistance. Upon entering the chawl Mr. Shantaram unravels to such a great extent because of the unrewarding work he must endure just to keep his family in such a lowly condition and this results in his being overwhelmed with shame. Poverty can not be an excuse for his behavior but like many other characters it seems to spark his disintegration from a man into an animal. Poverty is so overwhelming for many that they lose a part of their soul in the daily struggle just to survive. However, this situation soon turns from tragic to romantic. Ram becomes Gudiya's savior by pushing Mr. Shantaram down the stairs and this not only doesn't kill him and leave his family to starve, it magically inspires him to have a change of heart. For Gudiya, just as for Ram, poverty is something that is temporary and their moral courage it seems one can transcend their circumstances. How Gudiya was able to afford to go to school to become a lawyer was never addressed. Perhaps her father got his job back as an astronomer. This is unlikely.

The Ending

The relationship between Prem Kumar and Ram throughout the novel shows the disrespect given to the poor. From the beginning, it is almost a joke to Prem Kumar that Ram is even on the show. When Ram continues to answer questions correctly, Prem Kumar becomes more and more agitated. After he convinces Ram to "Play or Pay" by assuring him he will win, Prem Kumar changes the question to try to stop Ram (233-237). In the final chapter, Prem Kumar's true character is revealed. He is not only Neelima Kumari's abuser, but he is responsible for Nita's hospital visit.

When Ram confronts him with a gun, Prem Kumar is terrified. He never would have expected something like this from an impoverished waiter. He thought he was on the show to dabble at winning money. He had just finished taunting Ram by saying he would come to his restaurant and leave him a thousand-rupee tip. Ram, however, is there for revenge. He goes through a flashback of all the horrible times he has been through. From Maman's orphanage to watching Shankar die from rabies, Ram has been through quite the adventure. Even when he earns money, he ends up losing it. He cannot come out on top and seems destined to remain that poor and lowly. As he recounts all this, he becomes sad not angry. The fact that the poor hopeless orphan cannot shoot the corrupt middle class abuser romanticizes poverty.

Ram's winning the show adds further romance to the novel. In fact, the whole ending gives off the appearance that poverty is only temporary. Not only does Ram stay moral, he wins. He has money, he has the girl, and he even gets a sister, Gudiya. After seeing all the tragic events of Ram's life, we are left with him winning. Although it makes for a feel-good, happy ending, it turns poverty into a romance. Unfortunately, this is generally only possible in a novel.

PRMOPT 2

For this week, please consider any depiction of the slums or of poverty in general that we haven't talked about in class. What is the effect of that description? From whose perspective are we seeing the poverty and why? How do we come to be accustomed to feeling a certain way about the poverty in the novel? If the novel is indeed structured like a romance and poverty is something to flee from, then does this mean that the novel believes that poverty is really only temporary? Make sure to explain which passages you are looking at -- page numbers are helpful.