The following quotes describe Ammu and Velutha's relationship: "Even later, on the thirteen nights that followed this one, instinctively they stuck to the Small Things. The Big Things ever lurked inside. They knew that there was nowhere for them to go. They had nothing. No future. So they stuck to the small things" (320).
"...fear was derailed...though later Baby Kochamma would say it was a Small Price to Pay. Was it? Two lives. Two children's childhoods" (318).
At the close of the novel, it is clear that Ammu and Velutha have built their love off of the small pleasures in life. They believe that this is what makes for a truly fulfilling relationship. The couple lets loose all of their inhibitions and experience almost youthlike thrill and fearless excitement. Roy explicitly states that they know the consequences of their relationship. But they continue anyway because they have nothing else. For the bulk of the novel, the adult versions of Estha and Rahel focus on the big things in life - refusing to believe that their small joys or sadnesses have any importance. But as they are reunited (and in their moment of "connection") they realize - as Ammu and Velutha did so many years earlier - that you simply have to grab hold of the little pleasures in life to feel truly happy. My question: Is focusing on the little picture rather than the big picture really the best thing? Baby Kochamma once said that what came out of Ammu and Velutha's "small things" relationship (Velutha's death) was an inconsequential loss. But it really wasn't. Because that death and the effect it had on the twins' life shaped them into the unhappy (and somewhat strange) creatures they became as adults. Would any of this have happened if Ammu and Velutha hadn't been so impulsively focused on little pleasures? Would Estha and Rahel have ever even needed to seek closure (and in such a weird way)?
hey! ok so here is the quotation i wanted to focus on:
"If he touched her, he couldn't talk to her, if he loved her he couldn't leave, if he spoke he couldn't listen, if he fought he couldn't win"(312) which is written more than once.
At the end of the novel, the readers know that this is about Velutha and Ammu. They also know that Velutha is supposed to represent the God of Small Things, which is the title of the novel. At the start of the story, one might think, at least I did, that the story was about Rahel and Estha, but in reality it is Velutha's story. He is the God of Small Things, and his actions affect everyone in the end. As a class we said that the God Of Small Things was personal beliefs and not as important as the Big God, this novel shows that the "Untouchables" or the lower-class people can affect everyone. This shows how labels do not help anything, because a person's action affects someone more than who they are in society. Also, this quotation shows the restrictions that society places on people because of their certain roles in society. It shows how their love was forbidden, and how secretive they had to be. One of this book's major themes is classification and this passage clearly illustrates this. I think this book is all about the effects that people have on others, no matter what their class is. Like the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, he had s huge affect on Estha. Velutha is simialr to this because he is not a "big" man with lots of power, but Ammu and him have the biggest effects on anyone in this book.
One quick question, though, why did the book end the way it did??
Estha reassuring Rahel that Velutha wasn't the one in prison: "You were right. It wasn't him. It was Urumban." [Estha] "Thang god," Rahel whispered back. "Where d'you think he is?" "Escaped to Africa." [Estha]
I think this conversation bears a resemblance to an earlier story about the Temple elephant Kochu Thomban who was thought to be electrocuted on the side of the road, but really turned out to be a different elephant that just really looked similar. The conversation happened in the Plymouth, and everyone reassured each other that the elephant was in fact not the elephant they knew (Kochu Thomban). The fact that the Kochu Thomban seems to have an "elephant twin" who suffered a grisly death foreshadows the Velutha/Urumban twin theory that Estha uses later on to escape from the cruel reality of Velutha's death.
I think this is a great example of how everything (even the seemingly miscellaneous stories) connect. In fact, there is a whole chapter named Kochu Thomban, so obviously the elephant has significance. Also, the Velutha/Kochu Thomban correlation shows how the Estha and Rahel tries to disconnect themselves from tragedy. Both times, they come to the conclusion that their beloved friend (elephant/Velutha) is safe and that the death they witness was actually something/somebody else.
Hi, first of all I really liked hallie's connection, it really brings everything together. I want to ask about Baby Kochama. By the end of the book, after she manipulates every situation to just ruin the people's lives around her, it really seems as though we are supposed to hate her. But then there are little facts thrown in like her lost love with Father Mulligan and her diaries in which she writes "I love you I love you" every single day. She is a very complex character. Her appearance and physical characteristics are described so that she has a very disgusting image. I think the idea with her character might be that although there are the "big things" about her that people notice (her obesity, her spitefulness, her anger, her ugliness), there is still a small part of her that is an extremely sad and pathetic and damaged individual. This is another example which poses the question, which are more important, the big things or the small things? Are we to judge her big evil faults or the small sad sorrows?
Passage #1: "' Esthapappychachen Kuttappen Peter Mon,' she says. She whispers. She moves her mouth. Their beautiful mother's mouth. Estha, sitting very straight, waiting to be arrested, takes his fingers to it. To touch the words it makes. To keep the whisper. His fingers follow the shape of it. The touch of teeth. His hand is held and kissed" (310)
Once again, Rahel and Estha share the small things; the very premise of this book. Together, they have shared the small things since the very beginning, since they were as small as it is humanly possible to be—this is something that twins and only twins (or other multiples) could possibly experience. It only seems fitting that should continue to share them through to the end of their grief, as I believe this moment is the milestone for—the end of their grief. What they share that is small this time is different than past times. It's not a moment, an event, a memory. It is words, small words. Very little is said in this moment they share, and even the decibel of these words is small. Small words said in a small voice, a whisper. To me, Estha's fingers shaping out how the words feel to him, something that has been foreign to him since the day he left on the Madras Mail, shows that he is paying attention to every little detail of the one small sentence (or name, really) that Rahel strung together for him. Upon reading this passage I envision a scenario akin to a very small child stumbling upon something as simple as a leaf for the very first time in his/her life and proceeding to inspect every single vain, crevice, marking. Taking note of all the little things that matter, that make the bigger picture. The important thing for Rahel and Estha is the small part of the bigger action. The small thing being that they are reunited, the big thing being their sleeping with each other. It isn't the big thing that mattered, it was the small, deeper meaning to it. This represents a pivot in their relationship back to the way things used to be with their interconnected mind, soul, voice, thought, feeling.
Passage #2: "Only that there were tears. Only that Quietness and Emptiness fitted together like stacked spoons. Only that there was a snuffling in the hollows at the base of a lovely throat. Only that a hard honey-colored shoulder had a semicircle of teethmarks on it. Only that they held each other close, long after it was over. Only that what they shared that night was not happiness, but hideous grief. Only that once again they broke the Love Laws. That lay down who should be loved. And how. And how much." (311)
Incest, love, grief, closure, a kodak moment? I'm not sure what to think. When I first read this, it didn't bother me at all. In fact it seemed strangely natural that they, out of all other characters in the book, should fit together in such an intimate way . In the context of this book it doesn't seem like incest, it really does seem like necessary closure. Yes, to sleep with your twin does seem an odd way to fend off long avoided and deeply conflicted grief. However, Estha and Rahel fit together throughout everything else to the point that when they had been separated for 15 or 20 years and could no longer hear each other's thoughts or feel one another's presence, that is when their relationship seemed horrifically unnatural. While it isn't confirmed, I have a feeling that after they share this night Estha begins to talk again. Because of the line "Quietness and Emptiness fitted together like stacked spoons" it is only right to assume that when Estha was quiet he was empty. He had nothing left, he was a shell, he didn't even have Rahel inside him anymore and without that he was truly lost to the world. But now that they have come together ( a bit more literally than perhaps anyone would normally be comfortable with) they can once and for all close out all that horrible grief and Estha can be filled up again and, one can only assume, subsequently brought out of his silence. Again, it says "what they shared that night was not happiness, but hideous grief" which would lead me to believe it was the end of their grief. Like break up sex if you really want to think of it like that, it was the end to a horrible period of time. It was not happiness that brought them together, but grief so that when the night was over the grief was over too. The ultimate form of closure. Well for Estha and Rahel at least :)
Conclusion: The theme of the book is that the big picture never truly shows what's going on. It's necessary to dig deeper and see the small things, the little seemingly minute details that in truth tie everything together. To an outsider Rahel and Estha's actions would seem vulgar because of their larger implications. However, the impetuses behind their action are smaller life events that brought them together, pushed them apart, and then brought them together again and that's what matters more.
"Ammu leaned against the bedroom door in the dark, reluctant to return to the dinner table, where the conversation circled like a moth around the white child and her mother as though they were the only source of light. Ammu felt that she would die, withere and die, if she heard another word. If she had to endure another minute of Chacko's proud, tennis-trophy smile. Or the undercurrent of sexual jealousy that emanated from Mammachi. Or Baby Kochamma's conversation that was designed to exclude Ammu and her children, to inform them of their place in the scheme of things." (312)
While I was reading this passage, I was thinking that even though Emptiness and Loneliness are used to denote Estha and Rahel, that Ammu encompasses those two themes also. Other characters seem to be lonely and quiet in their own sense. Ammu feels alone because after her divorce, when she was forced to return to her family, she had no one and she ultimately died alone, not being able to find a suitable job. Mammachi is alone because Pappachi mistreated her and then swore himself to sullen isolation. The only person who matters to Mammachi seems to be Chacko, who does not return Mammachi's feelings and actually secretly plots against Mammachi sometimes. This passage also added to the class discussion of the mother-son love between Mammachi and Chacko. Is there a theme of incestuous love in the novel? Baby Kochamma, having lost her love, is bitter against everyone else, reduced to a life of pining for the dead Father Mulligan. The only way for her to feel better, or appease herself, is to cause more pain. In the very end, it's Baby Kochamma who forced Estha to be returned. Mammachi doesn't seem to be truly at fault, since Baby Kochamma is the schemer who controlled the events. Even though Chacko has Margaret Kochamma and Sophie Mol, Margaret Kochamma and Sopie Mol still love Joe, and do not truly care for Chacko. In fact, the obsession Chacko has for his ex-wife and child is not truly love as he parades them around like objects. In truth, it seems like they are only reminders that serve to accentuate Chacko's Oxford education and scholarly "superiority".
I think that this line has been used earlier, but I was really drawn by the line "Little Man. He lived in a cara-van. Dum dum. Estha waited" (303) This passage made me think again about Estha's journey throughout the book. He has been constantly forced to grow up, whether it is by Ammu, Baby Kochamma, the YellowDrink OrangeDrink man, or quite possibly his own sister. This constant journey of maturity has been evident throughout the entire novel, from the first few pages when we learn about Sophie Mol's death to the book's final chapter. I think that every character throughout the book experienced a coming-of-age reality check, yet this journey is especially illuminated through Estha. The reader sees him evolve from being a playful boy to a silent skeleton of a man. All the while, Estha merely waits.
Wow. I really like everyone's comments so far, and you guys made some really great point I hadn't thought of yet.
The following quote is from the last two pages of the story, about Chappu Thamburan, the spider:
"Without admitting it to each other [Velutha and Ammu] or themselves, they linked their fates, their futures (their Love, their Madness, their Hope, their Infinnate Joy), to his. They checked on him every night (with growing panic as time went by) to see if he had survived the day. They fretted over his frailty. His smallness.... They chose him because they knew that they had to put their faith in fragility. Stick to Smallness" (320-321).
I absolutely love this part. For the end of the book, the spider came so unexpectedly, but it works so well. Again, the word "smallness" is brought up again. But most of all, I want to point out how the author says that Velutha and Ammu must "put thier faith" in the smallness of the creature, just like how they have to put their faith in each other and their situation. Though it is fragile and could easily be killed (like a spider), they choose to believe and take the chance that comes with that reliance.
A theme I'm trying to explore here: maybe it is the small things that matter the most. After all, they are what make you happy, and keep you sane.
"There's no time to lose I heard her say Cash your dreams before They slip away Dying all the time Lose your dreams and you Will lose your mind." (314)
Early in the book when Chacko was explaining about the History House, the family was referred to as "Prisoners of War." (52) Their dreams were said to have been "doctored", and thus they "belong nowhere". This War of Dreams had long existed in Indian culture and worsen when the British arrived. Untouchables were convinced to hate themselves and worship higher-caste members, the same way anglophiles were "adoring their conquerors", the British. Lyrics from the song, Ruby Tuesday, by Rolling Stones, tell us that we can lose our sanity if we lose our dreams, or a vision of a better future. Pappachi, Baby Kochamma, and Chacko are perfect scenarios showcasing the consequences of losing your dreams. Pappachi's moth represents his dreams for honor after retirement, which he proved useless around the house as Mammachi sells her homemade goods. As a result of losing this honor, Pappachi starts to beat his wife, which cause her incestuous love for Chacko. After Chacko lost the love of his life, and his newborn daughter, he comes back to Ayemenem and begins a new life without much hope or optimism. (Chacko used to be an optimist back in England.) Baby Kochamma becomes a bittered, twisted ex-nun, after leaving Father Mulligan, and ruins other people's lives (Ammu's, the twins', and Velutha's). However, the story demonstrates that even if you act out your dreams, such as the case with Ammu and Velutha, you would still be persecuted by limitations set by History. The author showed an India where the past (the History House) and the future (doctored dreams) both exist. But the future (hopes, dreams, thoughts that defy their categories) is constantly eliminated by the past, the History.
"Velutha didn't live through the night. Half an hour past midnight, Death came for him. And for the little family curled up and asleep on a blue cross-stitch counterpane? What came for them? Not Death. Just the end of living" (304).
I think this quotation seems to combine many aspects of this entire book. Velutha is the God of Small Things and has somehow (despite the fact that as an Untouchable he's supposed to be insignificant) tied everyone and everything together. Although there has been some uncertainty in this blog, I still think that the book is saying that the small things matter more. And if the GOD of these small things, the person who is at the height of it all, suddenly dies, then it must cause a big impact so that nothing can ever be the same anymore. And I think this is very true. Velutha, despite his status as an insignificant person who doesn't even deserve to have any footprints, has actually kept everything together. His ability as a carpenter is the reason that the Pickle Factory does not become completely disfunctional (especially since the factory is under Chacko's leadership). The way he treats Estha and Rahel makes him a type of father figure to them so that although the twins strive for Chacko's love, this desire does not lessen their love for Velutha. He is also the love of Ammu, a woman who despises the way people treat her as a result of her divorce. I think Ammu feels miserable as a result of the contempt of the society and Velutha is able to give her a bit of happiness, something which I think is hard for her to find. And now that Velutha is dead, it is "the end of living" for all the other characters because nothing keeps their lives secure anymore. Chacko and Margaret Kochamma are scarred by their child's death, the Pickle Factory dies away from lack of leadership, Estha is Returned and in the process loses his ability to communicate, Rahel becomes a rebellious person who begins to feel indifferent about everything, and Ammu is forced to move away and in the process she changes from a beautiful woman to a woman who has lost all her features and who ends up having a little man inside her clouding her voice.
sorry this is extremely late... "There were people trapped in the glass paperweight on the policeman's desk. Estha could see them...There was paperweight waltz music...They looked happy...They were looking deep into each other's eyes. Baby Kochamma followed Estha's gaze. It was all she could do to prevent herself from taking the paperweight and flinging it out of the window." (301-302) So I thought of 1984 while reading this part...obviously. But I definitely thought of how the paper weight tied the story together at that moment when they were at the police station...even though there was about 20 pages left. We all had the idea that the God of Small things was something that possesed our personal feelings, our desires, and the struggles life offered. Just in 1984 how Winston and Julia understood each other through the corrupt society of Big Brother; the glass paperweight basically represented their unity. At this point in the novel, I would have to say that Estha realizes he is not alone, in relation to his behavior, which seemed very distant and un-brotherly towards Rahel. This paperweight captured the man and women in one of the happiest days of their lives. Although this may not seem big, I kind of thought that it was. This paperweight presented a world of its own and a still frame of happiness; the one thing Estha's family has been longing to find. But also how the imargery of eyes is used, with B. Kochamma following Estha's gaze, and how the couple stared into each other's eyes. This brought back the time with Rahel and how she was staring outside the window while she was having sex with...I forget his name. Her eyes at that moment in the novel represented despair, and with the lovers gazing into each other's eyes(the ones in the paperweight), I think presented the turning point in the novel (or at least one of them...) This moment already shows how life is going to be different for Estha's family since he realizes the peace and serenity of the glass paperweight. He realizes that happiness is possible. Lastly, the part when B. Kochamma wanted to throw the paperweight outside the window but didn't, also represented something big. Because in 1984 when the paperweight shattered, Julia and Winston's lives were torn apart, but in this story, the paperweight was still left in tact. I think this represented something big. Not sure what...but certainly something. gosh..hope this made some sense.
"There is very little that anyone could say to clarify what happened next. Nothing that (in Mammachi's book) would seperate Sex from Love. Or Needs from Feelings. Except perhaps that no watcher watched through Rahel's eyes. No one stared out the window at the sea. Or a boat in the river..."
Although this scene seems to make a lot of connections with earlier in the book, it is just too weird for me. I could not describe this with any other word than simply bizzare. However, it does seem to fill in a gap in the story because Arundhati spends a lot of time vividly portraying sex scenes, and he is now describing a whole new, much more connected, type of sex, which is probably a metaphor.
The theme that stood out to me in the last reading was the importance of the "small things." Since Ammu and Velutha can't be together because of societal pressures, they enjoy the little time that they have together and make the best of it. They stay in "the now" and focus on the "little things." Ammu and Velutha don't worry about their future together. Instead, they look forward to "tomorrow", which is used in the last excerpt of the book: "Each time they parted, they extracted only one small promise from each other: Tomorrow? Tomorrow. (321)" The use of "tomorrow" is used in a previous chapter also: "Tomorrow. [Velutha] told himself. Tomorrow when the rain stops." Some of the small things that Ammu and Velutha acknowledge are "ant-bites on each other's bottoms, clumsy caterpillars sliding off the ends of leaves, at overturned beetles that couldn't right themselves. At the small pair of fish... (320)"
"[Rahel] was lovely to [Estha]... Grown into their mother's skin... Her mouth full-lipped. something wounded-looking about it. As though it was flinching from something. As though long ago someone - a man with rings - had hit her across it. A beautiful, hurt mouth. Their mother's mouth, Estha thought. Ammu's mouth." (283-4)
The fact that Estha and Rahel concede to an incestuous relationship is in itself discomfiting - not only are they brother and sister, but twins. Even further, though, Estha seems to see his mother reflected in his sister-lover. After all, both twins have always loved Ammu deeply (hiding the truth, implicating their friend Velutha, and lying to the police for her sake) - so why is it Estha who is still so connected to the memory of his mother? Is it because he was the one Baby Kochamma sent to the police to betray her?
On the subject of Velutha: he was another man who loved Ammu, and was actually described as "the God of Small Things", who leaves "no footprints on the shore" (274). In the end, he lost her and suffered greatly, like Estha. Following the reasoning that such footprintless characters who cross rivers into Darkness are in search of their history, was Estha's incest with Rahel a return to his history? They did grow up together, virtually constituting each others' pasts. And their incest is described as full of "not happiness, but hideous grief", as would be expected from revisiting painful memories (311).
Finally, I feel as though the incest is the final maturation of the twins. As children, they kissed their mother, "unclouded by passion or desire - that pair of dogs that sleep so soundly inside children, waiting for them to grow up" (211). Now they've reached their "viable die-able" ages and kiss each other, mixing Sex and Love, Needs and Feelings (310). In a way, they have performed their rite of passage by discovering in each other the passion that marks adulthood - though their mother's memory is still present in their progress.
Estha escaped from his history by receding into himself; Rahel escaped by physically leaving the country. And both matured by returning to each other (components of their pasts), which was painful but strangely satisfying (in that twisted incestuous way). But this leaves many connections to be made. How does Ammu factor in? Is she a Big Thing, or a Small Thing? And Sophie Mol? How does she fit in?
stacy brings up an interesting point, in this book are we supposed to judge people on the small things or the big overbearing things? I think that we should judge them by the small things. I mean focusing on the bigger picture is great, but one cannot forget the little details that make that picture up. It is like the old cliche you can't judge a book by its cover. One needs to look beyond that and see what is actually there. The charcters in ths book have lots of qualities that overtake them and make one not like them, but if one can look past that one will find the true person that they actually are. I think that is what this book is about, it says that one has to look beyond the exterior and the classes that define them and find what is truly there.
I think "twinkie"'s comment is very interesting. It makes sense that the children want to believe that who they lost, either Kochu the elephant or Velutha, is fine and nothing has happened to them, but it also makes me wonder if they actually believe it. I don't think they do, because they are still overcome emotionally with grief, and it clearly has an effect on their lives as adults. They lose their mother as a result of Velutha's death, but they also lose each other. When they meet again, the words "hideous grief" are used. Though they tell themselves and each other that Velutha is safe in Africa, the truth may be understood, but just unspoken.
I though that Hallie's comment brought up an interesting point about how this story is Velutha's story. I think it's interesting how everything connects back to one central character that once seemed minor but is actually so important. I think it also brings up a point about how all of us, touchable or untouchable, male or female, young or old, respected or looked down upon, share some characteristics that ultimately make us individually undefinable until you know the supposed right answer.
I really liked Hallie's post. I like how she brought up the idea that the importance of the small/big god not only related to material things in the book (like the caterpillars and beetles that Ammu and Velutha pay attention to instead of the Big Things, like the fact that they can't be together), but also to the characters. Although Velutha is considered small in the social hierarchy, he has the biggest impact on the other characters in the story. The quotation that Jane selected shows his everlasting impact.
A lot of the comments that have been said have to deal with the importance of small things. Jane's comment talked about the effects (affects? whats the difference anyways?) that Velutha's death had on the family, which I found really intriguing, because the death, to the police, or, for that matter, any other observer, is routine. Although Roy never says this, it could be considered a Velutha-shaped-hole-in-the-universe, like many other characters and ideas in the novel. But it isn't. As Jane said, Velutha's death is completely destructive to the family, as the small things are not there any more, as she described. Like what Cora said, it is the small things that keep you sane. So, what seems like a normal, routine death (small) is actually one that has much more consequences for others. This could point to some kind of relation between the big and small things, maybe confirming Wenqi ("twinkie")'s idea that everything in the book is connected. Also, as Hallie said, Velutha has little real power, but he is also described by Roy in the last scene as very big and muscular, probably from all his work on small things. Although by now I'm thinking that I'm just making a big deal out of nothing. I mean Velutha's death does matter a lot to this family, and not to the police, but you could say the same thing about almost any similar situation (with different people who it matters and doesn't matter to though). So for everything that happens there's some group that it has a big a/effect on and another which it seems pretty normal and routine. So, yeah. I have no idea if what i just said actually means anything.
22 comments:
The following quotes describe Ammu and Velutha's relationship:
"Even later, on the thirteen nights that followed this one, instinctively they stuck to the Small Things. The Big Things ever lurked inside. They knew that there was nowhere for them to go. They had nothing. No future. So they stuck to the small things" (320).
"...fear was derailed...though later Baby Kochamma would say it was a Small Price to Pay. Was it? Two lives. Two children's childhoods" (318).
At the close of the novel, it is clear that Ammu and Velutha have built their love off of the small pleasures in life. They believe that this is what makes for a truly fulfilling relationship. The couple lets loose all of their inhibitions and experience almost youthlike thrill and fearless excitement. Roy explicitly states that they know the consequences of their relationship. But they continue anyway because they have nothing else.
For the bulk of the novel, the adult versions of Estha and Rahel focus on the big things in life - refusing to believe that their small joys or sadnesses have any importance. But as they are reunited (and in their moment of "connection") they realize - as Ammu and Velutha did so many years earlier - that you simply have to grab hold of the little pleasures in life to feel truly happy.
My question: Is focusing on the little picture rather than the big picture really the best thing? Baby Kochamma once said that what came out of Ammu and Velutha's "small things" relationship (Velutha's death) was an inconsequential loss. But it really wasn't. Because that death and the effect it had on the twins' life shaped them into the unhappy (and somewhat strange) creatures they became as adults. Would any of this have happened if Ammu and Velutha hadn't been so impulsively focused on little pleasures? Would Estha and Rahel have ever even needed to seek closure (and in such a weird way)?
hey! ok so here is the quotation i wanted to focus on:
"If he touched her, he couldn't talk to her, if he loved her he couldn't leave, if he spoke he couldn't listen, if he fought he couldn't win"(312) which is written more than once.
At the end of the novel, the readers know that this is about Velutha and Ammu. They also know that Velutha is supposed to represent the God of Small Things, which is the title of the novel. At the start of the story, one might think, at least I did, that the story was about Rahel and Estha, but in reality it is Velutha's story. He is the God of Small Things, and his actions affect everyone in the end. As a class we said that the God Of Small Things was personal beliefs and not as important as the Big God, this novel shows that the "Untouchables" or the lower-class people can affect everyone. This shows how labels do not help anything, because a person's action affects someone more than who they are in society. Also, this quotation shows the restrictions that society places on people because of their certain roles in society. It shows how their love was forbidden, and how secretive they had to be. One of this book's major themes is classification and this passage clearly illustrates this. I think this book is all about the effects that people have on others, no matter what their class is. Like the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, he had s huge affect on Estha. Velutha is simialr to this because he is not a "big" man with lots of power, but Ammu and him have the biggest effects on anyone in this book.
One quick question, though, why did the book end the way it did??
Estha reassuring Rahel that Velutha wasn't the one in prison:
"You were right. It wasn't him. It was Urumban." [Estha]
"Thang god," Rahel whispered back. "Where d'you think he is?"
"Escaped to Africa." [Estha]
I think this conversation bears a resemblance to an earlier story about the Temple elephant Kochu Thomban who was thought to be electrocuted on the side of the road, but really turned out to be a different elephant that just really looked similar. The conversation happened in the Plymouth, and everyone reassured each other that the elephant was in fact not the elephant they knew (Kochu Thomban). The fact that the Kochu Thomban seems to have an "elephant twin" who suffered a grisly death foreshadows the Velutha/Urumban twin theory that Estha uses later on to escape from the cruel reality of Velutha's death.
I think this is a great example of how everything (even the seemingly miscellaneous stories) connect. In fact, there is a whole chapter named Kochu Thomban, so obviously the elephant has significance. Also, the Velutha/Kochu Thomban correlation shows how the Estha and Rahel tries to disconnect themselves from tragedy. Both times, they come to the conclusion that their beloved friend (elephant/Velutha) is safe and that the death they witness was actually something/somebody else.
Hi, first of all I really liked hallie's connection, it really brings everything together.
I want to ask about Baby Kochama. By the end of the book, after she manipulates every situation to just ruin the people's lives around her, it really seems as though we are supposed to hate her. But then there are little facts thrown in like her lost love with Father Mulligan and her diaries in which she writes "I love you I love you" every single day. She is a very complex character. Her appearance and physical characteristics are described so that she has a very disgusting image. I think the idea with her character might be that although there are the "big things" about her that people notice (her obesity, her spitefulness, her anger, her ugliness), there is still a small part of her that is an extremely sad and pathetic and damaged individual. This is another example which poses the question, which are more important, the big things or the small things? Are we to judge her big evil faults or the small sad sorrows?
Passage #1:
"' Esthapappychachen Kuttappen Peter Mon,' she says. She whispers. She moves her mouth. Their beautiful mother's mouth. Estha, sitting very straight, waiting to be arrested, takes his fingers to it. To touch the words it makes. To keep the whisper. His fingers follow the shape of it. The touch of teeth. His hand is held and kissed" (310)
Once again, Rahel and Estha share the small things; the very premise of this book. Together, they have shared the small things since the very beginning, since they were as small as it is humanly possible to be—this is something that twins and only twins (or other multiples) could possibly experience. It only seems fitting that should continue to share them through to the end of their grief, as I believe this moment is the milestone for—the end of their grief. What they share that is small this time is different than past times. It's not a moment, an event, a memory. It is words, small words. Very little is said in this moment they share, and even the decibel of these words is small. Small words said in a small voice, a whisper. To me, Estha's fingers shaping out how the words feel to him, something that has been foreign to him since the day he left on the Madras Mail, shows that he is paying attention to every little detail of the one small sentence (or name, really) that Rahel strung together for him. Upon reading this passage I envision a scenario akin to a very small child stumbling upon something as simple as a leaf for the very first time in his/her life and proceeding to inspect every single vain, crevice, marking. Taking note of all the little things that matter, that make the bigger picture.
The important thing for Rahel and Estha is the small part of the bigger action. The small thing being that they are reunited, the big thing being their sleeping with each other. It isn't the big thing that mattered, it was the small, deeper meaning to it.
This represents a pivot in their relationship back to the way things used to be with their interconnected mind, soul, voice, thought, feeling.
Passage #2:
"Only that there were tears. Only that Quietness and Emptiness fitted together like stacked spoons. Only that there was a snuffling in the hollows at the base of a lovely throat. Only that a hard honey-colored shoulder had a semicircle of teethmarks on it. Only that they held each other close, long after it was over. Only that what they shared that night was not happiness, but hideous grief. Only that once again they broke the Love Laws. That lay down who should be loved. And how. And how much." (311)
Incest, love, grief, closure, a kodak moment? I'm not sure what to think.
When I first read this, it didn't bother me at all. In fact it seemed strangely natural that they, out of all other characters in the book, should fit together in such an intimate way .
In the context of this book it doesn't seem like incest, it really does seem like necessary closure. Yes, to sleep with your twin does seem an odd way to fend off long avoided and deeply conflicted grief. However, Estha and Rahel fit together throughout everything else to the point that when they had been separated for 15 or 20 years and could no longer hear each other's thoughts or feel one another's presence, that is when their relationship seemed horrifically unnatural.
While it isn't confirmed, I have a feeling that after they share this night Estha begins to talk again. Because of the line "Quietness and Emptiness fitted together like stacked spoons" it is only right to assume that when Estha was quiet he was empty. He had nothing left, he was a shell, he didn't even have Rahel inside him anymore and without that he was truly lost to the world.
But now that they have come together ( a bit more literally than perhaps anyone would normally be comfortable with) they can once and for all close out all that horrible grief and Estha can be filled up again and, one can only assume, subsequently brought out of his silence.
Again, it says "what they shared that night was not happiness, but hideous grief" which would lead me to believe it was the end of their grief. Like break up sex if you really want to think of it like that, it was the end to a horrible period of time. It was not happiness that brought them together, but grief so that when the night was over the grief was over too. The ultimate form of closure. Well for Estha and Rahel at least :)
Conclusion: The theme of the book is that the big picture never truly shows what's going on. It's necessary to dig deeper and see the small things, the little seemingly minute details that in truth tie everything together.
To an outsider Rahel and Estha's actions would seem vulgar because of their larger implications. However, the impetuses behind their action are smaller life events that brought them together, pushed them apart, and then brought them together again and that's what matters more.
Mr. Golding:
The lyrics are from Ruby Tuesday. :)
p.s. sorry to everyone that my post is actually just way too MASSIVE.
"Ammu leaned against the bedroom door in the dark, reluctant to return to the dinner table, where the conversation circled like a moth around the white child and her mother as though they were the only source of light. Ammu felt that she would die, withere and die, if she heard another word. If she had to endure another minute of Chacko's proud, tennis-trophy smile. Or the undercurrent of sexual jealousy that emanated from Mammachi. Or Baby Kochamma's conversation that was designed to exclude Ammu and her children, to inform them of their place in the scheme of things." (312)
While I was reading this passage, I was thinking that even though Emptiness and Loneliness are used to denote Estha and Rahel, that Ammu encompasses those two themes also. Other characters seem to be lonely and quiet in their own sense. Ammu feels alone because after her divorce, when she was forced to return to her family, she had no one and she ultimately died alone, not being able to find a suitable job. Mammachi is alone because Pappachi mistreated her and then swore himself to sullen isolation. The only person who matters to Mammachi seems to be Chacko, who does not return Mammachi's feelings and actually secretly plots against Mammachi sometimes. This passage also added to the class discussion of the mother-son love between Mammachi and Chacko. Is there a theme of incestuous love in the novel? Baby Kochamma, having lost her love, is bitter against everyone else, reduced to a life of pining for the dead Father Mulligan. The only way for her to feel better, or appease herself, is to cause more pain. In the very end, it's Baby Kochamma who forced Estha to be returned. Mammachi doesn't seem to be truly at fault, since Baby Kochamma is the schemer who controlled the events. Even though Chacko has Margaret Kochamma and Sophie Mol, Margaret Kochamma and Sopie Mol still love Joe, and do not truly care for Chacko. In fact, the obsession Chacko has for his ex-wife and child is not truly love as he parades them around like objects. In truth, it seems like they are only reminders that serve to accentuate Chacko's Oxford education and scholarly "superiority".
I think that this line has been used earlier, but I was really drawn by the line "Little Man. He lived in a cara-van. Dum dum.
Estha waited" (303)
This passage made me think again about Estha's journey throughout the book. He has been constantly forced to grow up, whether it is by Ammu, Baby Kochamma, the YellowDrink OrangeDrink man, or quite possibly his own sister. This constant journey of maturity has been evident throughout the entire novel, from the first few pages when we learn about Sophie Mol's death to the book's final chapter. I think that every character throughout the book experienced a coming-of-age reality check, yet this journey is especially illuminated through Estha. The reader sees him evolve from being a playful boy to a silent skeleton of a man. All the while, Estha merely waits.
Sorry guys the Minga post is by me! I was logged onto this Minga account and I forgot to log out.
-Melanie Fineman (who is not Minga)
Wow. I really like everyone's comments so far, and you guys made some really great point I hadn't thought of yet.
The following quote is from the last two pages of the story, about Chappu Thamburan, the spider:
"Without admitting it to each other [Velutha and Ammu] or themselves, they linked their fates, their futures (their Love, their Madness, their Hope, their Infinnate Joy), to his. They checked on him every night (with growing panic as time went by) to see if he had survived the day. They fretted over his frailty. His smallness....
They chose him because they knew that they had to put their faith in fragility. Stick to Smallness" (320-321).
I absolutely love this part. For the end of the book, the spider came so unexpectedly, but it works so well. Again, the word "smallness" is brought up again. But most of all, I want to point out how the author says that Velutha and Ammu must "put thier faith" in the smallness of the creature, just like how they have to put their faith in each other and their situation. Though it is fragile and could easily be killed (like a spider), they choose to believe and take the chance that comes with that reliance.
A theme I'm trying to explore here: maybe it is the small things that matter the most. After all, they are what make you happy, and keep you sane.
"There's no time to lose
I heard her say
Cash your dreams before
They slip away
Dying all the time
Lose your dreams and you
Will lose your mind." (314)
Early in the book when Chacko was explaining about the History House, the family was referred to as "Prisoners of War." (52) Their dreams were said to have been "doctored", and thus they "belong nowhere". This War of Dreams had long existed in Indian culture and worsen when the British arrived. Untouchables were convinced to hate themselves and worship higher-caste members, the same way anglophiles were "adoring their conquerors", the British. Lyrics from the song, Ruby Tuesday, by Rolling Stones, tell us that we can lose our sanity if we lose our dreams, or a vision of a better future. Pappachi, Baby Kochamma, and Chacko are perfect scenarios showcasing the consequences of losing your dreams. Pappachi's moth represents his dreams for honor after retirement, which he proved useless around the house as Mammachi sells her homemade goods. As a result of losing this honor, Pappachi starts to beat his wife, which cause her incestuous love for Chacko. After Chacko lost the love of his life, and his newborn daughter, he comes back to Ayemenem and begins a new life without much hope or optimism. (Chacko used to be an optimist back in England.) Baby Kochamma becomes a bittered, twisted ex-nun, after leaving Father Mulligan, and ruins other people's lives (Ammu's, the twins', and Velutha's). However, the story demonstrates that even if you act out your dreams, such as the case with Ammu and Velutha, you would still be persecuted by limitations set by History. The author showed an India where the past (the History House) and the future (doctored dreams) both exist. But the future (hopes, dreams, thoughts that defy their categories) is constantly eliminated by the past, the History.
"Velutha didn't live through the night. Half an hour past midnight, Death came for him. And for the little family curled up and asleep on a blue cross-stitch counterpane? What came for them? Not Death. Just the end of living" (304).
I think this quotation seems to combine many aspects of this entire book. Velutha is the God of Small Things and has somehow (despite the fact that as an Untouchable he's supposed to be insignificant) tied everyone and everything together. Although there has been some uncertainty in this blog, I still think that the book is saying that the small things matter more. And if the GOD of these small things, the person who is at the height of it all, suddenly dies, then it must cause a big impact so that nothing can ever be the same anymore. And I think this is very true. Velutha, despite his status as an insignificant person who doesn't even deserve to have any footprints, has actually kept everything together. His ability as a carpenter is the reason that the Pickle Factory does not become completely disfunctional (especially since the factory is under Chacko's leadership). The way he treats Estha and Rahel makes him a type of father figure to them so that although the twins strive for Chacko's love, this desire does not lessen their love for Velutha. He is also the love of Ammu, a woman who despises the way people treat her as a result of her divorce. I think Ammu feels miserable as a result of the contempt of the society and Velutha is able to give her a bit of happiness, something which I think is hard for her to find. And now that Velutha is dead, it is "the end of living" for all the other characters because nothing keeps their lives secure anymore. Chacko and Margaret Kochamma are scarred by their child's death, the Pickle Factory dies away from lack of leadership, Estha is Returned and in the process loses his ability to communicate, Rahel becomes a rebellious person who begins to feel indifferent about everything, and Ammu is forced to move away and in the process she changes from a beautiful woman to a woman who has lost all her features and who ends up having a little man inside her clouding her voice.
sorry this is extremely late...
"There were people trapped in the glass paperweight on the policeman's desk. Estha could see them...There was paperweight waltz music...They looked happy...They were looking deep into each other's eyes. Baby Kochamma followed Estha's gaze. It was all she could do to prevent herself from taking the paperweight and flinging it out of the window." (301-302)
So I thought of 1984 while reading this part...obviously. But I definitely thought of how the paper weight tied the story together at that moment when they were at the police station...even though there was about 20 pages left. We all had the idea that the God of Small things was something that possesed our personal feelings, our desires, and the struggles life offered. Just in 1984 how Winston and Julia understood each other through the corrupt society of Big Brother; the glass paperweight basically represented their unity.
At this point in the novel, I would have to say that Estha realizes he is not alone, in relation to his behavior, which seemed very distant and un-brotherly towards Rahel. This paperweight captured the man and women in one of the happiest days of their lives. Although this may not seem big, I kind of thought that it was. This paperweight presented a world of its own and a still frame of happiness; the one thing Estha's family has been longing to find.
But also how the imargery of eyes is used, with B. Kochamma following Estha's gaze, and how the couple stared into each other's eyes. This brought back the time with Rahel and how she was staring outside the window while she was having sex with...I forget his name. Her eyes at that moment in the novel represented despair, and with the lovers gazing into each other's eyes(the ones in the paperweight), I think presented the turning point in the novel (or at least one of them...) This moment already shows how life is going to be different for Estha's family since he realizes the peace and serenity of the glass paperweight. He realizes that happiness is possible.
Lastly, the part when B. Kochamma wanted to throw the paperweight outside the window but didn't, also represented something big. Because in 1984 when the paperweight shattered, Julia and Winston's lives were torn apart, but in this story, the paperweight was still left in tact. I think this represented something big. Not sure what...but certainly something.
gosh..hope this made some sense.
"There is very little that anyone could say to clarify what happened next. Nothing that (in Mammachi's book) would seperate Sex from Love. Or Needs from Feelings. Except perhaps that no watcher watched through Rahel's eyes. No one stared out the window at the sea. Or a boat in the river..."
Although this scene seems to make a lot of connections with earlier in the book, it is just too weird for me. I could not describe this with any other word than simply bizzare.
However, it does seem to fill in a gap in the story because Arundhati spends a lot of time vividly portraying sex scenes, and he is now describing a whole new, much more connected, type of sex, which is probably a metaphor.
The theme that stood out to me in the last reading was the importance of the "small things." Since Ammu and Velutha can't be together because of societal pressures, they enjoy the little time that they have together and make the best of it. They stay in "the now" and focus on the "little things." Ammu and Velutha don't worry about their future together. Instead, they look forward to "tomorrow", which is used in the last excerpt of the book: "Each time they parted, they extracted only one small promise from each other: Tomorrow? Tomorrow. (321)"
The use of "tomorrow" is used in a previous chapter also: "Tomorrow. [Velutha] told himself. Tomorrow when the rain stops."
Some of the small things that Ammu and Velutha acknowledge are "ant-bites on each other's bottoms, clumsy caterpillars sliding off the ends of leaves, at overturned beetles that couldn't right themselves. At the small pair of fish... (320)"
"[Rahel] was lovely to [Estha]... Grown into their mother's skin... Her mouth full-lipped. something wounded-looking about it. As though it was flinching from something. As though long ago someone - a man with rings - had hit her across it. A beautiful, hurt mouth. Their mother's mouth, Estha thought. Ammu's mouth." (283-4)
The fact that Estha and Rahel concede to an incestuous relationship is in itself discomfiting - not only are they brother and sister, but twins. Even further, though, Estha seems to see his mother reflected in his sister-lover. After all, both twins have always loved Ammu deeply (hiding the truth, implicating their friend Velutha, and lying to the police for her sake) - so why is it Estha who is still so connected to the memory of his mother? Is it because he was the one Baby Kochamma sent to the police to betray her?
On the subject of Velutha: he was another man who loved Ammu, and was actually described as "the God of Small Things", who leaves "no footprints on the shore" (274). In the end, he lost her and suffered greatly, like Estha. Following the reasoning that such footprintless characters who cross rivers into Darkness are in search of their history, was Estha's incest with Rahel a return to his history? They did grow up together, virtually constituting each others' pasts. And their incest is described as full of "not happiness, but hideous grief", as would be expected from revisiting painful memories (311).
Finally, I feel as though the incest is the final maturation of the twins. As children, they kissed their mother, "unclouded by passion or desire - that pair of dogs that sleep so soundly inside children, waiting for them to grow up" (211). Now they've reached their "viable die-able" ages and kiss each other, mixing Sex and Love, Needs and Feelings (310). In a way, they have performed their rite of passage by discovering in each other the passion that marks adulthood - though their mother's memory is still present in their progress.
Estha escaped from his history by receding into himself; Rahel escaped by physically leaving the country. And both matured by returning to each other (components of their pasts), which was painful but strangely satisfying (in that twisted incestuous way). But this leaves many connections to be made. How does Ammu factor in? Is she a Big Thing, or a Small Thing? And Sophie Mol? How does she fit in?
stacy brings up an interesting point, in this book are we supposed to judge people on the small things or the big overbearing things? I think that we should judge them by the small things. I mean focusing on the bigger picture is great, but one cannot forget the little details that make that picture up. It is like the old cliche you can't judge a book by its cover. One needs to look beyond that and see what is actually there. The charcters in ths book have lots of qualities that overtake them and make one not like them, but if one can look past that one will find the true person that they actually are. I think that is what this book is about, it says that one has to look beyond the exterior and the classes that define them and find what is truly there.
I think "twinkie"'s comment is very interesting. It makes sense that the children want to believe that who they lost, either Kochu the elephant or Velutha, is fine and nothing has happened to them, but it also makes me wonder if they actually believe it. I don't think they do, because they are still overcome emotionally with grief, and it clearly has an effect on their lives as adults. They lose their mother as a result of Velutha's death, but they also lose each other. When they meet again, the words "hideous grief" are used. Though they tell themselves and each other that Velutha is safe in Africa, the truth may be understood, but just unspoken.
I though that Hallie's comment brought up an interesting point about how this story is Velutha's story. I think it's interesting how everything connects back to one central character that once seemed minor but is actually so important. I think it also brings up a point about how all of us, touchable or untouchable, male or female, young or old, respected or looked down upon, share some characteristics that ultimately make us individually undefinable until you know the supposed right answer.
I really liked Hallie's post. I like how she brought up the idea that the importance of the small/big god not only related to material things in the book (like the caterpillars and beetles that Ammu and Velutha pay attention to instead of the Big Things, like the fact that they can't be together), but also to the characters. Although Velutha is considered small in the social hierarchy, he has the biggest impact on the other characters in the story. The quotation that Jane selected shows his everlasting impact.
A lot of the comments that have been said have to deal with the importance of small things. Jane's comment talked about the effects (affects? whats the difference anyways?) that Velutha's death had on the family, which I found really intriguing, because the death, to the police, or, for that matter, any other observer, is routine. Although Roy never says this, it could be considered a Velutha-shaped-hole-in-the-universe, like many other characters and ideas in the novel. But it isn't. As Jane said, Velutha's death is completely destructive to the family, as the small things are not there any more, as she described. Like what Cora said, it is the small things that keep you sane. So, what seems like a normal, routine death (small) is actually one that has much more consequences for others. This could point to some kind of relation between the big and small things, maybe confirming Wenqi ("twinkie")'s idea that everything in the book is connected. Also, as Hallie said, Velutha has little real power, but he is also described by Roy in the last scene as very big and muscular, probably from all his work on small things. Although by now I'm thinking that I'm just making a big deal out of nothing. I mean Velutha's death does matter a lot to this family, and not to the police, but you could say the same thing about almost any similar situation (with different people who it matters and doesn't matter to though). So for everything that happens there's some group that it has a big a/effect on and another which it seems pretty normal and routine. So, yeah. I have no idea if what i just said actually means anything.
Post a Comment