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.