A Camera's Journey

My last thoughts about Roy's novel is that it was really interesting to see that it ended with the cause of all the troubles in the novel and not with the Rahel-Esta scene. I think that by ending with the Ammu love scene it gives the novel a completely different feel, I mean if I look back at the novel from that point it is not as gruesome as it was as I was reading it. If it would have ended with the Rahel-Esta scene then the whole novel takes on a different meaning, for me, than if it ends with a beautiful moment.
The final scene with Ammu really focused on the point that we had talked about in class which was Roy's attention to the smaller parts of the whole. The novel began with a, to put it in movie terms, wide shot like from a helicopter or some place far off. We were introduced to these characters, to Sophie Mol's death, but it was not until later that the camera closes in on the individual events that shaped that introduction. The final scene was a close-up of this forbidden couple that knew the consequences of their actions, but still did it anyway. It made it seem like the whole book was an attempt to focus in on the small part, as if the camera was in a constant zoom. It zoomed pretty close sometimes, like when they talk about what happened to Esta, the moment when Ammu blames her children for her misfortune, and the passage that described Baby Kotchamma's diary. Those were pretty close shots, but when you try to zoom in too fast the picture becomes blurry and out of focus and it takes all the way until Ammu's love scene to gain back its focus and put the camera's journey in perspective.
Its weird that since Q&A all I can think of are movie metaphors.