Meer Mushfique Mahmood*
Fahmida Haque**
Abstract
Postmodern eye looks at human society from the vantage-point which is much
criticized by the philosophers of a wide range of different disciplines. It is
said that postmodernism fails to establish its own philosophy, own solution
and, thereby, postmodern urge is kept aside all human endeavor looking at it
with a suspicious eye. On the other hand, the postmodernists, addressing the
all-inclusive-philosophies as meta-narratives, declare that the metanarratives
have lost their power to convince and, therefore, advocate little narratives.
However, this paper tries to respect the postmodern urges with the study of the
novel The God of Small Things.
Introduction
Rice and Waugh in the introductory section of the 'Postmodernism' in their
Modern Literary Theory state "Postmodernism is a 'mood' expressed
theoretically across a diverse range of theoretical discourses and involving: a
focus on the collapse of grand narratives into local incommensurable language
games or 'little narratives'; a Foucauldian emphasis on the discontinuity and
plurality of history as discursively produced and formulated, and a tendency to
view the discourses of Enlightenment reason as complicit with the instrumental
rationalization of modern life."(Arnold, 325) Particularly, the 'grand
narratives' ['super-narratives' (Barry, 86)] in other way are addressed as
'meta-narratives' (Barry, 86) which are abstract ideas that are thought to be a
comprehensive explanation of historical experience or knowledge. (wikipedia).
The examples of metanarratives are Christianity, Islam, Enlightenment theories,
Freudian theory, feminism, Marxism or the myth of scientific progress etc.
(Barry, 86) According to postmodern philosophers, meta-narratives have lost
their power to convince - they are, literally, stories that are told in order
to legitimise various versions of "the truth". (wikipedia) With the
transition from modern to postmodern, Lyotard proposes that metanarratives
should give way to 'petits récits', or more modest and "localized"
narratives. (wikipedia) Postmodernists attempt to replace metanarratives by
focusing on specific local contexts as well as the diversity of human experience.
(wikipedia) Based on the postmodernist view, Arundhati Roy's The God of Small
Things esteems the postmodern urge for 'little narratives' which helps us to
reveal the quicksand of the metanarratives in forms of "Love-Laws"
[16], Christianity, feminism, Marxism and the so called social codes of the
society.
Literature Review
It seems that the postmodern issues have been less discussed regarding The God
of Small Things. But definitely some major works have already been done on this
novel, which in other way carry the postmodernist endeavor. Of them, the most
prominent and supporting discussion is of Ng Shing Yi's "Peripheral Beings
and Loss in Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things" where Yi (2003)
investigates how Roy's invisible narratives dwells upon the small things, how
the main protagonists of the story essentially occupy peripheral positions in
their family or society. Yi (2003) again explains how The God of Small Things
attempts to overturn their marginality, their absent histories, by recording
the careful detail of their lives, each minute fantasy and idea, the small
creeping emotions that culminate in passion or despair.
Ng Shing Yi (2003) exposes the novel as the corruption and inhumanity of
socialist party politics (or more specifically, politicking) and capitalism,
both of which are domains of power and of subtle colonial imperialism. As if to
underline that their marginalized narratives constitute a hole in chronological
history, time in the novel is synchronized: the traumatic events of loss and expulsion
are told in brief, crystallized flashbacks. While "small things" may
ironically connote triviality, the novel is ultimately concerned with
marginality, absence and loss: in other words, the invisible narratives that
are consumed by power, politics, or imperialism.
Another important work is Laura Carter's "Critical Essay on The God of
Small Things" where she (Thomson Gale, 2006) points out that Velutha is
used as an example by the authorities of those who remain out of step with the
new regime or the British way of life. Ultimately, it is the influence of
outside political and social forces that kill Velutha both spiritually and
physically, as well as permanently scar Estha and Rahel's psyches. Carter also
explains that Velutha's excellence as a person illuminates the unfairness of
the caste laws. When Velutha is seen marching in a Communist parade, it
illustrates the changing structure of political power in the culture. Velutha's
grandfather had converted to Christianity, but even the new religion could not
overcome the entrenched caste laws of the society, and the churches became
segregated for the Untouchables. Later, many years after the incident, the
culture protects the men who uphold its prejudices and injustices. When Rahel
meets Comrade Pillai, she notices that he "didn't hold himself in any way
personally responsible for what had happened. He dismissed the whole business
as the Inevitable Consequence of Necessary Politics." [8]
Similarly, Prasad (2006) suggests that in the case of Roy's corpus, the
discourse of marginality must be considered in conjunction with the
representation of resistance. Prasad pleads that the title of Roy's celebrated
novel must not be applied to Velutha exclusively. The God of Small Things is
the spirit of powerlessness and social exclusion that pervades the lives of the
unfortunate of the world. In this connection Chapter Eleven of the novel must
be re-read and re-interpreted. The God of Small Things takes in his embrace
Velutha, Ammu, Rahel, Estha, labourers and women in the factory - indeed all
those who area, in one way or another, marginalized. Prasad (2006) explains by
what stylistic means Roy has given voice and expression to the sufferings of
these people; their oppression at the hands of those who wield power and the
machinery that dispenses injustice. Roy states, "misfortune is always
relative," (kirkus review, 2009) a country in which personal turmoil is
dwarfed by the "vast, violent, insane public turmoil of a nation."
[10]
Besides these discussions, the theme of love is obviously a vital issue of the
novel The God of Small Things. Scott Trudell's (Thomson Gale, 2006)
"Critical Essay on The God of Small Things" discusses why the two
forbidden sexual episodes in the final two chapters of The God of Small Things
are so crucial to the history of the Kochamma family and emblematic to the
meaning of the novel. He also explains how cultural forces guide an individual
to break the social rules. In the end, the novel shifts and the cultural forces
begin to exert their power over the individuals. Baby Kochamma performs her
machinations "not for Ammu," but to "contain the scandal"
that has occurred when the Love Laws were broken. Trudell's (2006) essay
observes that all the tension, desire, and desperation beneath the surface of
the narrative meet the expressions of love, which are examples of perhaps the
greatest, most unthinkable taboos of all.
Discussion and Analysis
The novel precisely deals with the disasters in life of Ammu, Velutha, Rahel,
Estha. The points which strike most in the text might be - Ammu's divorce,
Rahel's marriage, Rahel's divorce, affair and relation between Ammu and
Velutha, relation between Rahel and Estha. All these issues can be taken as the
violation of social codes. But if we study the novel with a keen eye, we would
see that these violations of social codes are inevitable incidents in the lives
of these characters. In fact, what is brought under criticism is the
meta-narratives which guide their society in which they live in.
Throughout the novel, we see Ammu, Estha, Rahel, and Velutha are not typical
characters among all other typed members of Kochamma Family. This is a story of
dream, desire to be loved and to love, desire to remain in touch with near and
dear ones. The narrative shows how all small beautiful desires of life are just
smashed. The novel exclaims why the dreams are not fulfilled, desires are not
satisfied and life is either to be worn-out or, inevitably, to enter that
corner of life which forms its own senses, own rules contrary to the social
codes of the civilized society; and its own explanation of life which will help
us to understand the quicksand of the civilized world. Throughout the whole
novel, we see almost a ghetto is created and Rahel, Estha, Ammu and Velutha are
just thrown inside it mercilessly. Sophie Mol's death, marked as the point to
enter the life of ultimate disaster in the life of Ammu, Estha, Rahel, and
Velutha, is mirrored in the mind of Rahel as "Sophie Mol died because she
could not breathe." [4] This utterance shows not only the immature line of
thought of a minor child, but also connotative to the meaning of the whole
novel. All characters mentioned above are turned into speechless and breathless
state of existence.
Rahel returns to Ayemenem not only to see her twin Estha but also to see her
loving one, to feel the touch of her loving one, to fulfill the ultimate taste
of life. In the writer's words - "'Rahel gave up her job at the gas
station and left America gladly'. 'To return to Ayemenem'. 'To Estha in the
rain'". [10] The image 'rain' signifies one's sophisticated taste, one's
desire from the inner most part of one's heart - both mental and physical. And
here arises the conflict - conflict with the social code, conflict with the
teachings of meta-narratives.
The theme of love is a conspicuous issue of the novel The God of Small Things
and also a much discussed and debated issue by the critics. The writer is
accused of discussing the points which are conflicting with the social codes
like "Love Laws". And all romantic love in the novel relates closely
to politics, history and social circumstances. If the novel is studied
carefully, we can find out that 'Love' is not a mere emotion but a motivating
force that can be explained in terms of two peoples' (Ammu and Velutha)
cultural backgrounds, political identities and other factors which ultimately
become the quicksand of all existent meta-narratives.
We see, in Kochamma Family, both the Children - Rahel and Estha - were the
objects of negligence. They were bound to feel that they were just the burdens
to the family. Several times it is stated that Ammu was being neglected in the
Kochamma Family - her parents' family. The children were neglected and were
suffering from inferior complexity at every step. We see, in Sophie Mol's
funeral, Estha, Rahel and Ammu stood separately. Rahel, a child who was upset
because of 'little less' [52] loved by her mother wanted to sacrifice her
dinner in exchange of her mother's complete love. But, disastrously she
encountered the most tragic death of her mother and the refusal of the church
for her mother's burial. All of these instances may be seen as the possible
causes of any type of disorder.
Rahel was sent to the Christian Missionary school - an institution with the
signboard of meta-narratives, an institution to carry on the wheel of
civilization. We see Rahel is punished for her revolting deeds against
ideology.
Six months later she was expelled after repeated complaints from senior girls.
She was accused (quite rightly) of hiding behind doors and deliberately
colliding with her seniors. When she was questioned by the Principal about her
behavior (cajoled, caned, starved), she eventually admitted that she had done
it to find out whether breasts hurt. In that Christian institution, breasts
were not acknowledged. They weren't supposed to exist (and if they didn't could
they hurt?). [9]
Again, we see that remaining in the laps of meta-narrative guided world; a
child is being reared without the touch of love and guidance like an orphan.
Rahel grew up without a brief. Without anybody to arrange a marriage for her.
Without anybody who would pay her a dowry and therefore without an obligatory
husband looming on her horizon. [9]
Her life became dreamless and tasteless. She marries not with the dream to be
loved or not to love her lover whole-heartedly: "Rahel drifted into
marriage like a passenger drifts towards an unoccupied chair in an airport
lounge. With a Sitting Down sense."[10]
The dream world of married life becomes monotonous one to her.
But when they made love he was offended by her eyes. They behaved as though
they belonged to someone else. Someone watching. Looking out of the window at
the sea. At a boat in the river. Or a passerby in the mist in a hat. He was
exasperated because he didn't know what that look meant. He put it somewhere
between indifference and despair. [10]
Rahel is divorced. The divorced life is a dead life to her.
"We're divorced." Rahel hoped to shock him into silence.
"Die-vorced?" His voice rose to such a high register that it cracked
on the question mark. He even pronounced the word as though it were a form of
death. [60]
After the divorce, Rahel worked at the Gas Station and faced the beastly faces
of a civilized country. On the other hand, Estha's experience of the
circumstances surrounding Sophie Mol's visit is somewhat more traumatic than
Rahel's, beginning when he is sexually abused by the Orangdrink Lemondrink Man
at the Abhilash Talkies Theater. The narrator stresses that Estha's "Two
Thoughts" in the pickle factory, which stem from this experience (that
"Anything can happen to Anyone" [90] and "It's best to be
prepared" [90]) are critical in leading to his cousin's death.
Estha is the twin chosen by Baby Kochamma, because he is more
"practical" [144] and "responsible," [144] to go into
Velutha's cell and condemn him as their abductor. This trauma, in addition to
his departure for Calcutta to live with his father, contributes to Estha
becoming mute at some point in his childhood. Estha never went to college and
acquired a number of habits, such as wandering on very long walks and
obsessively cleaning his clothes. Estha rambled around Ayemenem target-less,
speechless. He didn't answer Pillai. This was a silent protest of a man who has
lost his everything. Estha's conflict within himself turns him into a silent
creature. But in his inside "there is an uneasy octopus that lived-and
squirted its inky tranquilizer on his past" [7].
Both, Estha and Rahel, are victims of family, society, institutions. According
to Pillai, a communist leader "One was mad. The other die-vorced."
[60] These two human beings one 'die-vorced' and another maddened, inevitably,
touch each other with love.
Ammu, a woman hankering after the purity of life, innocent beauty of life, sweetness
of life, love and touch of her beloved one - all of the small and beautiful and
sophisticated desires of life, falls in love with a carpenter neglecting the
social codes of traditional society. But why? We, again, do not get any answer
from the all inclusive meta-narratives and what we get is only the barriers and
threats.
Ammu finished her schooling the same year that her father retired from the job
in Delhi and moved to Aymenem. Pappachi insisted that a college education was
unnecessary expense for a girl so Ammu had no choice but to leave Delhi and
move with him. There was little for a young girl to do in Aymenem other than to
wait for marriage proposal.
Ammu, an adolescent girl tortured in her parents' home married her husband as
she, at any cost, wanted to leave her parents' home. But the marriage takes her
inside a terrible life.
She was twenty-seven that year, and in the pit of her stomach she carried the
cold knowledge that, for her, life had been lived. She had had one chance. She
made a mistake. She married the wrong man. [18]
She became the public property - property of some civilized people. "Ammu,
beautiful, young and cheeky, became the toast of the Planters' Club." [19]
She was targeted by Mr. Hollick, the English gentleman. And her husband
consented to the proposal and tortured her physically. Her father, her
begetter, became doubtful of her complaint, in a way, accused her. We see her
world filled with darkness; she returns to her parents' house and, thereby,
embraced a life full of disrespect, disaster, hatred and scolding. Even, she
faced the ugliest face of relationship also.
Within first few months of her return to her parent's home; Ammu quickly
learned to recognize and despise the ugly face of sympathy. Old female
relations with their incipient beards and several wobbling chins made overnight
trips to Aymenm to commiserate her about her divorce. She fought off the urge
to slap them. [20]
In this giddy world, Ammu falls in love with Velutha ignoring the codes of
traditional society. As a consequence, Velutha is mudered, Ammu is dead or
murdered.
For one thing, therefore, the forbidden love affairs at the end of the novel
are crucial because they reveal the disgust and horror with the lovers that is
at the root of the violence and tragedy directed against them. Present-day
readers probably do not consider inter-caste romance repulsive, but they are
quite likely to be shocked and offended by incest. The reader's reaction to
such violations of the Love Laws allows him/her to understand how and why such
drastic social and political consequences could have resulted from the
transgressions at the end of The God of Small Things. Roy allows the reader an
insight into the emotional basis behind the careful, planned brutality of those
dedicated to Kerala's social code, such as the Touchable Policemen who believe
that in beating Velutha to death they are enforcing the Love Laws and
"inoculating a community against an outbreak." [140]
However, the love affairs also allow the reader to identify with the
transgressor, and they inspire a sympathetic reaction for four people who are
abused, tortured, and betrayed by their society's most fundamental rules. The
reasons for Ammu's turn to Velutha are sharply drawn and inspire a great deal
of sympathy when she studies her body, the body of an "inexperienced
lover," [104] in the mirror and peers "down the road to Age and Death
through its parted strands." [104] Ammu's love affair is, in a sense, the
cause of the novel's tragedy because it shatters her family, condemns Velutha
to a brutal death, traumatizes Rahel and Estha for the rest of their lives, and
results in her own decay and death. It is also, however, the result of an
entire lifetime of abuse, confinement, and imprisonment in a stinting social
code. This code not only fails to protect Ammu against her father beating her
with a brass vase, her father imprisoning her in the house even when she is an
adult, and her husband beating her; it actually leads to these consequences.
When she recognizes that Kerala's social code is in the process of forcing her
down Baby Kochamma's path of bitter, joyless confinement to the house until
death, she acts in perfectly understandable desperation and attempts to find
happiness with Velutha.
Rahel's incestuous contact with Estha is so crucial and definitive in their
identity search. In the opening passages of the novel, the narrator relates
that, during their childhood, "Esthappen and Rahel thought of themselves
together as Me, and separately, individually, as We or Us. As though they were
a rare breed of Siamese twins, physically separate, but with joint
identities." [2] The twins' love-making is a metaphor for their in search
of this fractured and traumatized joint identity in their adulthood, and it is
a real, physical and emotional expression of their grief and longing remaining
inside the meta-narrative guided society.
To illustrate Rahel's isolation and despair and to find out the causes of her
eccentricities the writer writes:
He didn't know that in some places, like the country that Rahel came from,
various kinds of despair competed for primacy. And that personal despair could
never be desperate enough. That something happened when personal turmoil
dropped by at the wayside shrine of the vast, violent, circling, driving,
ridiculous, insane, unfeasible, public turmoil of a nation. That Big God howled
like a hot wind, and demanded obeisance. Then Small God (cozy and contained,
private and limited) came away cauterized, laughing numbly at his own temerity.
Inured by the confirmation of his own inconsequence, he became resilient and
truly indifferent Nothing mattered much. Nothing much mattered. And the less it
mattered, the less it mattered. It was never important enough. Because Worse
Things had happened. In the country that she came from, poised forever between
the terror of war and the horror of peace, Worse Things kept happening. [10]
This is a direct comment of the author through the voice of Rahel's husband.
This shows the desolation of the society, where Rahel was born. The phrase 'Big
God' directly indicates and satirizes the metanarratives and the phrase 'Small
God' directly indicates little desires of life with the sympathetic heart. And
this direct analysis of metaphysical issues reveals the writer's assessment of
meta-narratives.
The author (www.progressive.org), when asked what does the god of small things
implies, she stated that it is "the inversion of God," a "not
accepting of what we think of as adult boundaries." Roy asserts that
throughout the course of the narrative, "all sorts of boundaries are
transgressed upon." It is, according to Roy, small events and ordinary
things "smashed and reconstituted, imbued with new meaning to become the
bleached bones of the story." [16] Subsequently, it is these small events
and ordinary things that form a pattern of her narrative art.
Douglas Dupler (2006) says that Arundhati Roy's novel The God of Small Things
reveals a so-called Big God presides over the large happenings of the world,
the "vast, violent, circling, driving, ridiculous, insane, unfeasible,
public turmoil of a nation." [10] In contrast, it is a Small God that
resides over the individual lives caught up in forces too powerful and large
for these individuals to understand and to change. This Small God is "cozy
and contained, private and limited," [10] residing over people for whom
"worse things" are always happening. Individuals ruled by the
symbolic Small God adopt resignation and "inconsequence" in the face
of mass movements, while at the same time their oppression makes them
"resilient and truly indifferent." [10]
The ultimate outcome of this love affair is the tragic death of an
"Untouchable" by the "Touchable Boots" [138] of the state
police, an event that makes a travesty of the idea of God. God is no more in
control of "small things" rather the small things have an ultimate
power over God, turning him to "The God of loss" (141)
Again, we find the writer's microscopic look on the so called civilized
dealings of society and culture -
The performances were staged by the swimming pool. While the drummers drummed
and the dancers danced, hotel guests frolicked with their children in the
water. While Kunti revealed her secret to Karna on the riverbank, courting
couples rubbed suntan oil on each other. While fathers played sublimated sexual
games with their nubile teenaged daughters, Poothana suckled young Krishna at
her poisoned breast. Bhima disemboweled Dushasana and bathed Draupadi's hair in
his blood. [58-59]
This statement of the writer shows the darker corners of the so called
civilized minds of the society which upholds the signboard of civilization. The
simultaneous presence of the issues - fathers playing sublimated sexual games
with their adolescent daughters, allusion of Kunti's revealing her secret of Karna,
Poothana suckling young Krishna, Bhima's disemboweling Dushasana and bathing
Draupadi's hair - reveals the writers satiric most look on the religion guided
society.
Again, the writer criticizes the social institutions. To state regarding Ammu's
presence at the police station, it is written -
Inspector Thomas Mathew's mustaches bustled like the friendly Air India
Maharajah's, but his eyes were sly and greedy.
"It's a little too late for all this, don't you think?" he said. He
stared at Ammu's breasts as he spoke. He said the police knew all they needed
to know and that the Kottayam Police didn't take statements from veshyas or
their illegitimate children. Ammu said she'd see about that. Inspector Thomas
Mathew came around his desk and approached Ammu with his baton.
"If I were you," he said, "I'd go home quietly." Then he
tapped her breasts with his baton. Gently. Tap tap. As though he was choosing
mangoes from a basket. Pointing out the ones that he wanted packed and
delivered. Inspector Thomas Mathew seemed to know whom he could pick on and
whom he couldn't. Policemen have that instinct. [5]
This is a clear tirade against an institution which is formed by the guidelines
of the metanarratives guided society and state. There was a board in the police
station which inscribed:
Behind him a red and blue board said:
Politeness.
Obedience.
Loyalty.
Intelligence.
Courtesy.
Efficiency. [5]
This is a powerful satire through which Arundhati distinctively shows how the
protectors of laws ultimately manipulate and transgress it. Here, Roy
ironically means everything regarding the meta-narratives of civilization and
the novel is replete with such type of instances.
Likewise, we get to know how the writer dissected the Kochamma Family, the
Church, the society with a strong expression of hatred which clearly states the
writer's views on the so called established systems of the civilization and her
intention to show the quicksand of the meta-narratives.
Indian history and politics shape the plot and meaning of The God of Small
Things in a variety of ways. Some of Roy's commentary is on the surface, with
jokes and snippets of wisdom about political realities in India. However, the
novel also examines the historical roots of these realities and develops
profound insights into the ways in which human desperation and desire emerge
from the confines of a firmly entrenched caste society. Roy reveals a complex
and longstanding class conflict in the state of Kerala, India, and she comments
on its various competing forces. Roy's novel attacks the brutal, entrenched,
and systematic oppression at work in Kerala, exemplified by figures of power
such as Inspector Thomas Mathew. Roy is also highly critical of the hypocrisy
and ruthlessness of the conventional, traditional moral code of Pappachi and
Mammachi. On the opposite side of the political fence, the Kerala Communist
Party, at least the faction represented by Comrade Pillai, is revealed to be
much more concerned with personal ambition than with any notions of social
justice.
Again, Kerala is the place which is populated with the Christians and Hindus,
inherited by the people with colonial hangover. With this very setting, the
writer directly and vividly includes the causes of the misery of the characters
- all the instances of the history of civilization, all the sign-boards of
civilization, all the causes, logics, thoughts helped to initiate the journey
of the civilized world, all the civilized institutions of the society - human
society spread throughout the whole world. To state about the causes of
miseries the characters faced the writer writes:
Equally, it could be argued that it actually began thousands of years ago. Long
before the Marxists came. Before the British took Malabar, before the Dutch
Ascendency before Vasco da Gama arrived, before the Zamorin's conquest of
Calicut. Before three purple-robed Syrian bishops murdered by the Portuguese
were found floating in the sea, with coiled sea serpents riding on their chests
and oysters knotted in their tangled beards. It could be argued that it began
long before Christianity arrived in a boat and seeped into Kerala like tea from
a teabag. That it really began in the days when the Love Laws were made. The
laws that lay down who should be loved, and how. [16]
Here the writer includes all of the metanarratives; all of the historical
experiences or knowledge; every of the transcendent thoughts, beliefs,
feelings; every of the moments of the history of civilization from the very
beginning of its journey. After stating all of the dark corners, short comings
of the society, the writer, comments on miseries of their life:
Perhaps Ammu, Estha and she were the worst transgressors. But it wasn't just
them. It was the others too. They all broke the rules. They all crossed into
forbidden territory. They all tampered with the laws that lay down who should
be loved and how. And how much. The laws that make grandmothers grandmothers,
uncles uncles, mothers mothers, cousins cousins, jam jam, and jelly jelly. [15]
And what happened, according to the writer, because of all these is -
"Little events, ordinary things, smashed and reconstituted. Imbued with
new meaning. Suddenly they become the bleached bones of a story."[16] So,
what is being revealed is - they broke the rules, built their own world with little
narratives which was simply inevitable for them.
By drawing the reader into the microcosm of the lives of Ammu, Velutha, and the
twins, one undergoes the realization that these small lives, ruined by large
impersonal forces and the petty tyranny of men, are not trivial at all, but
contain a portrait of humanity in exquisite miniature:
...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... [152]
…….they had to put their faith in fragility. Stick to Smallness. Each time they
parted, they extracted only one small promise from each other.
'Tomorrow?'
'Tomorrow.' [153]
Ammu, together with her children, Rahel and Estha, as well as the mostly-absent
but pivotally significant Velutha, they form the novel's core: socially
marginalized, their personal histories constitute what Roy would call "a
hole in the Universe." [89] That is, their narratives are largely absent
from the larger narratives of history and politics, since they are mostly
victims rather than enactors of the rules comporting their society.
Conclusion
Thus, all the meta-narratives in forms of "Love-Laws" [16],
Christianity, feminism, Marxism, sense of civilization, institutions of
civilization are criticized by the writer clearly throughout the whole text.
Roy clearly stands for the little desires of human life and The God of Small
Things attempts to overturn their marginality, their absent histories, by recording
the minute details of their lives, each minute fantasy and idea, the small
creeping emotions that culminate in passion or despair. Arundhati Roy's,
critical observation, severe attack on the metanarratives and, on the other
hand, powerful support on the little desires of human life forces us to esteem
the postmodern urges from the inner most part of our heart.
References:
Barry, Peter. Beginning theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.
Carter, Laura. Critical Essay on The God of Small Things. Thomson Gale, 2006.
Prasad, Murari (ed). Arundhati Roy: Critical Perspectives. Delhi: Pencraft
International, 2006.
Rice, Philip and Partricia Waugh. Modern Literary Theory. London: Arnold, 2002.
Roy, Arundhati. The God of Small Things. London: Random House, 1997.
Yi, Ng Shing. "Peripheral Beings and Loss in Arundhati Roy's The God of
Small Thing". QLRS Vol. 2 No. 4 Jul 2003.
http://www.progressive.org/intv0401.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6563923/Arundhati-Roy-The-God-of-Small-Things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative, February 18, 2009.
*Lecturer, Dept. of English, IBAIS University,
mushfiquemahmood@gmail.com
** Assistant Professor, Dept. of English, IBAIS University,
fahmida@ibais.edu