I'm not sure if this is where we were supposed to respond to each other's blog posts, but anyway...
Jane's post brought up something that I hadn't really thought about. It is somewhat ironic how Velutha, an Untouchable, holds all things together-including the collapsing Paradise Pickles factory. Moreover, Velutha is suggested as being the God of Small Things. Since he is an Untouchable, it can be assumed that the small things that he "rules" over are less important than the big things. But Velutha of the Small Things is the one who holds everything together. So are the big things really more important than the small things? We may never be able to answer that question.
One thing that I noticed has been a recurring theme not only on blog posts but also in class is the subject of the "incestuous" relationship between Mammachi and Chacko. Honestly, I have difficulty seeing such a relationship between the mother-son pair. Why is it that one mother's parental love for her child is being translated into sexual desire? I see Mammachi's close dependence on Chaco as being more the appreciation and respect paid towards the first person who defended her and demanded that others (i.e., Pappachi) do as well. For years, Mammachi had her dreams destroyed by her abusive husband (she was unable to pursue her music career, etc.) Chacko was the first person to acknowledge Mammachi as being a human being deserving of respect and for that, Mammachi is truly devoted and loyal to her son.
To respond to Alexandra's comment, Chacko and Mammachi's relationship is more than that of a mother-son. Actually, it seems to be more of a victim-savior relationship, transcending the "normal" relationship that a mother might have with a son. Because Chacko was the only one to stand up to Pappachi and "be the man", it's almost as if he's taken up the position of the head male of the household, which explains the sexual tensions between Chacko and Mammachi. After Chacko ended the brass lamp beatings, Pappachi also retreated into a state of hostility and making it seem as if Mammachi was not taking care of him. This sounds more like the type of frustration that a teenage son might have, so it really demonstrates how the traditional roles in the household have been switched.
Also responding to Alexandra, though Chacko did defend Mammachi from Pappachi's physical abuse, Chacko also abuses her in his own psychological way. Mammachi overpowers her son with her love and adulation while Chacko purposely hurts his mother where he knows it will hurt the most (by insulting himself). I do not think this is "respectful" behavior, in fact, I do not believe Chacko treats Mammachi as an equal human being. When he returns from England, he removes Mammachi's authority over her pickle factory and takes over in her place because he was "more knowlegable," a Rhodes scholar, and a MAN nonetheless. Thus, Mammachi's unfailing devotion to Chacko despite all of his downfalls denotes a stronger emotion than just the conventional mother-son love. After the pappachi incident, Mammachi's love became something that was not exactly the unconditional love a mother feels for her child. After all, Chacko had to "save" her from Pappachi for her to "transfer her wifely baggage to him." All in all, I feel like this whole book is about abuse, just people who've been hurt (Chacko, Baby Kochamma, Ammu) abusing other people (Mammachi, Estha and Rahel)- thus continuing the whole cycle.
I'm also not entirely sure if this blog is for responding to others, or just for final responses, but I guess I'll do both in one.
Since we seem to be responding to our current blogs (rather than the other ones), I would like to say that Wenqi makes a good point that abuse is mentioned a lot in this book. The entire novel is filled with relatively dysfunctional relationships or else with loves that are only one-sided. Failed relationships within the novel lead to bitter characters. And yet, there is that other side where there are relationships of pure love, such as (in my opinoin) Velutha and Ammu's relationship and the way the younger versions of Estha and Rahel love the majority of their family. In relation to the questions that were mentioned in class today, I think Baby Kochamma is partially to blame. Her bitterness and her unwillingness to see anyone else happy caused her to pull all these strings and twist the stories, taking advantage of Estha and Rahel at the polic station, and then persuading Chacko to break up the family. However, the book does say that Estha and Rahel were not entirely innocent for they instinctively chose to save Ammu without even considering Velutha. Also, Velutha's dad technically discovered Velutha's and Ammu's relationship and he was just as determined to hurt Velutha as Baby Kochamma was. The one difference is that Velutha's dad actually loves him. I also think that Estha and Rahel's incestuous relationship at the end of the novel is a good thing because after being apart for so long, they had stopped being human. I think because they are two halves of each other, they revived themselves into becoming a We and Us again. And they were always happier as children because they were a We and a Us.
4 comments:
I'm not sure if this is where we were supposed to respond to each other's blog posts, but anyway...
Jane's post brought up something that I hadn't really thought about. It is somewhat ironic how Velutha, an Untouchable, holds all things together-including the collapsing Paradise Pickles factory. Moreover, Velutha is suggested as being the God of Small Things. Since he is an Untouchable, it can be assumed that the small things that he "rules" over are less important than the big things. But Velutha of the Small Things is the one who holds everything together. So are the big things really more important than the small things? We may never be able to answer that question.
One thing that I noticed has been a recurring theme not only on blog posts but also in class is the subject of the "incestuous" relationship between Mammachi and Chacko. Honestly, I have difficulty seeing such a relationship between the mother-son pair. Why is it that one mother's parental love for her child is being translated into sexual desire? I see Mammachi's close dependence on Chaco as being more the appreciation and respect paid towards the first person who defended her and demanded that others (i.e., Pappachi) do as well. For years, Mammachi had her dreams destroyed by her abusive husband (she was unable to pursue her music career, etc.) Chacko was the first person to acknowledge Mammachi as being a human being deserving of respect and for that, Mammachi is truly devoted and loyal to her son.
To respond to Alexandra's comment, Chacko and Mammachi's relationship is more than that of a mother-son. Actually, it seems to be more of a victim-savior relationship, transcending the "normal" relationship that a mother might have with a son. Because Chacko was the only one to stand up to Pappachi and "be the man", it's almost as if he's taken up the position of the head male of the household, which explains the sexual tensions between Chacko and Mammachi. After Chacko ended the brass lamp beatings, Pappachi also retreated into a state of hostility and making it seem as if Mammachi was not taking care of him. This sounds more like the type of frustration that a teenage son might have, so it really demonstrates how the traditional roles in the household have been switched.
Also responding to Alexandra, though Chacko did defend Mammachi from Pappachi's physical abuse, Chacko also abuses her in his own psychological way. Mammachi overpowers her son with her love and adulation while Chacko purposely hurts his mother where he knows it will hurt the most (by insulting himself). I do not think this is "respectful" behavior, in fact, I do not believe Chacko treats Mammachi as an equal human being. When he returns from England, he removes Mammachi's authority over her pickle factory and takes over in her place because he was "more knowlegable," a Rhodes scholar, and a MAN nonetheless. Thus, Mammachi's unfailing devotion to Chacko despite all of his downfalls denotes a stronger emotion than just the conventional mother-son love. After the pappachi incident, Mammachi's love became something that was not exactly the unconditional love a mother feels for her child. After all, Chacko had to "save" her from Pappachi for her to "transfer her wifely baggage to him."
All in all, I feel like this whole book is about abuse, just people who've been hurt (Chacko, Baby Kochamma, Ammu) abusing other people (Mammachi, Estha and Rahel)- thus continuing the whole cycle.
I'm also not entirely sure if this blog is for responding to others, or just for final responses, but I guess I'll do both in one.
Since we seem to be responding to our current blogs (rather than the other ones), I would like to say that Wenqi makes a good point that abuse is mentioned a lot in this book. The entire novel is filled with relatively dysfunctional relationships or else with loves that are only one-sided. Failed relationships within the novel lead to bitter characters. And yet, there is that other side where there are relationships of pure love, such as (in my opinoin) Velutha and Ammu's relationship and the way the younger versions of Estha and Rahel love the majority of their family. In relation to the questions that were mentioned in class today, I think Baby Kochamma is partially to blame. Her bitterness and her unwillingness to see anyone else happy caused her to pull all these strings and twist the stories, taking advantage of Estha and Rahel at the polic station, and then persuading Chacko to break up the family. However, the book does say that Estha and Rahel were not entirely innocent for they instinctively chose to save Ammu without even considering Velutha. Also, Velutha's dad technically discovered Velutha's and Ammu's relationship and he was just as determined to hurt Velutha as Baby Kochamma was. The one difference is that Velutha's dad actually loves him. I also think that Estha and Rahel's incestuous relationship at the end of the novel is a good thing because after being apart for so long, they had stopped being human. I think because they are two halves of each other, they revived themselves into becoming a We and Us again. And they were always happier as children because they were a We and a Us.
Post a Comment