Sunday, February 28, 2010

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.

1 comment:

  1. This is very interesting to think about. Roy definitely makes History more real through portraying the loss, beauty, and innocence as well as the corruption. The fact that Estha and Rahel feel so guilty for something that wasn't really there fault not only shows their strong agency but it also emphasizes the corruption of those more directly responsible for Velutha's death. I think the contradictions Roy shows throughout the novel of moral character illustrates history in a way that we can connect with but also makes us think about society's stance.

    ReplyDelete