Finishing the novel, I had mixed reviews and thoughts. One thought was simply, why would Lahiri write such a story? If it wasn't for the keen attention to detail that Sage implements in the minds of all it's English students, this story could have been the basic portrayal of a standard Bengali life, with really, minimal meaning and purpose.
Kick in that keen attention to detail, and suddenly, there was a whole different story. A story about the struggle of traditions, and adapting to new lifestyles, ideals, and philosophies, along with the importance of a name and its affect on life, family, and also tradition became prominent themes. And suddenly, I thought it was a fantastic book.
To be honest, I haven't been entirely fond of any assigned school readings, whether it was at Sage or St. Margarets. They're all so sad and pessimistic. Yes, "The Namesake" had its sad parts, like his dad dying and Moshoumi cheating on him, etc. etc. But this was, might I say, a good sad. A reasonable sad, with a purpose. Not a sad such as an uncle being murdered by his vengeful nephew who's father was killed by his same uncle who also married his mother. Sorry Shakespeare, but I put that under the unreasonable pointless, sad. "The Namesake" had an element of honesty and purity that was appealing to me, and ultimately was why I would say I enjoyed this book more than any other book I have read for school. It was an easy, detailed read, and I felt connected to the book to some degree as well, living with multiple traditions and having an unusual name (maybe not as bad as Gogol, but still, you get the point).
Thank you , Jhumpa Lahiri.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Hi, I'm Maxine
Enter: Maxine. A seemingly lovely girl based on Gogol's description's, who has him falling head over heels form the day he first sets eyes on her. From the moment he meets her, Gogol has immense feelings for her. As human nature progressed, and Maxine mirrored Gogol's affection for her, Gogol became significantly involved with Maxine and her family.
Gogol's involvement with Maxine resulted in his integration with her American family, and subsequently with her American traditions. Her traditions in her household are the polar opposite of how he lives and how his family lives. Maxine's mother uses her fingers to eat, doesn't offer more food to Gogol and is more than welcoming to Gogol, who ultimately is a stranger, to her household. The family is, shall we say, laid back-relaxed. They are well of in regards to wealth, and are live life carelessly in a positive way. Gogol is conscious that his immersion with Maxine's family is a "betrayal of his own" (Lahiri 54).
Does this mean Gogol is ashamed of being with Maxine? No, not at all. In fact, Gogol relishes in this time with Maxine, and being away from his own family-which raises the question: How would his family, and Gogol himself, have fared if it wasn't for Maxine and her flip-flopped traditions?
Personally, I believe that if Gogol was to meet and potentially marry another Indian, he would want to stay with his parents and family, and have no desire to go elsewhere. It was Maxine's American influence on Gogol that in my opinion resulted in him distancing himself from his family and ultimately his Indian roots and traditions.
Now, the question becomes, what influence will Maxine have in the future? How will Gogol's reaction to his father's passing affect Maxine's influence from this point forward on Gogol? Should they stay together and have kids, what traditions will they follow?
Stay tuned.
Gogol's involvement with Maxine resulted in his integration with her American family, and subsequently with her American traditions. Her traditions in her household are the polar opposite of how he lives and how his family lives. Maxine's mother uses her fingers to eat, doesn't offer more food to Gogol and is more than welcoming to Gogol, who ultimately is a stranger, to her household. The family is, shall we say, laid back-relaxed. They are well of in regards to wealth, and are live life carelessly in a positive way. Gogol is conscious that his immersion with Maxine's family is a "betrayal of his own" (Lahiri 54).
Does this mean Gogol is ashamed of being with Maxine? No, not at all. In fact, Gogol relishes in this time with Maxine, and being away from his own family-which raises the question: How would his family, and Gogol himself, have fared if it wasn't for Maxine and her flip-flopped traditions?
Personally, I believe that if Gogol was to meet and potentially marry another Indian, he would want to stay with his parents and family, and have no desire to go elsewhere. It was Maxine's American influence on Gogol that in my opinion resulted in him distancing himself from his family and ultimately his Indian roots and traditions.
Now, the question becomes, what influence will Maxine have in the future? How will Gogol's reaction to his father's passing affect Maxine's influence from this point forward on Gogol? Should they stay together and have kids, what traditions will they follow?
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
What is a name?
The proper definition of the word "name" is, "a word or set of words by which a person is known, addressed or referred to. Reading "The Namesake", "Notes from Underground", and the short story, "The Overcoat" all have one thing in common that sparked my interest. It was their names.
In "The Overcoat", his name, which I talked about last post, is-well, it's a bummer basically, let's put it that way. He is forced to live with it for the rest of his life. In "Notes from Underground", the only name for reference we have for the narrator or whoever is the main character in the book is the Underground Man, which really is frustrating! Underground simply gives the connotation that he is away from society and lives in his own world of solitude.
Then I thought of this question. What impact does a name really have on our lives? For me, there is none at all.
My name is Milad. No, I promise you haven't heard this name before here in America. It's pretty rare that someone can get my name perfectly right the first time, so I have to explain it to them. No, it does not mean shit, or anything of negative connotation-in fact in Farsi, it actually means an important birth, and the tallest tower in Iran actually is the Milad Tower, so I cannot say I can understand where Akaky Akakievich is coming from. But my name doesn't define ME. To be specific, my name means the birth of Jesus or Mohammed. Well, am I Jesus? No. I'm not. So clearly, my name doesn't define me, based solely on definition.
Honestly, I believe that the same concept can apply to Akaky or Underground or whoever. While you may be referred to as an unfortunate name, it doesn't mean you are unfortunate (sounds like I'm a motivational speaker, but whatever). Ultimately, names are simply how you are addressed as, not who you are or how you life is or will be.
In "The Overcoat", his name, which I talked about last post, is-well, it's a bummer basically, let's put it that way. He is forced to live with it for the rest of his life. In "Notes from Underground", the only name for reference we have for the narrator or whoever is the main character in the book is the Underground Man, which really is frustrating! Underground simply gives the connotation that he is away from society and lives in his own world of solitude.
Then I thought of this question. What impact does a name really have on our lives? For me, there is none at all.
My name is Milad. No, I promise you haven't heard this name before here in America. It's pretty rare that someone can get my name perfectly right the first time, so I have to explain it to them. No, it does not mean shit, or anything of negative connotation-in fact in Farsi, it actually means an important birth, and the tallest tower in Iran actually is the Milad Tower, so I cannot say I can understand where Akaky Akakievich is coming from. But my name doesn't define ME. To be specific, my name means the birth of Jesus or Mohammed. Well, am I Jesus? No. I'm not. So clearly, my name doesn't define me, based solely on definition.
Honestly, I believe that the same concept can apply to Akaky or Underground or whoever. While you may be referred to as an unfortunate name, it doesn't mean you are unfortunate (sounds like I'm a motivational speaker, but whatever). Ultimately, names are simply how you are addressed as, not who you are or how you life is or will be.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
$H*# Son of $H*#
Imagine having that name. Basically crappy son of the crappy (not sure if I'm allowed to say what it really means, but that's pretty accurate). Having that name would be absolute torture. I shiver just thinking about it! What's interesting about "The Overcoat" to me, is that the narrator always refers to him as Akaky Akakievich. Never does he simply say Akay, or Mr. Akakievich. It's like adding salt to a wound or oil to fire. Over and over.
So, it got me wondering. Why do that? Why would author, Nikolai Gogol stress his absolutely terrible name repeatedly? So I started thinking of the general purpose of this passage. Sure, Akaky does his job perfectly over and over again, but he is so underdeveloped that when he is asked to do work which "consisted only of altering the heading and in places changing the first person into third," (Gogol 308) he opts out because it would take "so much effort".
So clearly, this guy isn't the most motivated. But, I try to understand all sides of the story. Should Mr. Akakievich be repeatedly referred to as his full, dismal, name, every time? Maybe not. But through this action, Gogol does give the connotation that Akaky isn't necessarily a great man.
In conclusion: yes, the repetition does implement the idea that Akaky is basically a loser to put it bluntly, but not, he I wouldn't think that he should be called his name repeatedly.
Come on, father of Akaky. That's not cool.
So, it got me wondering. Why do that? Why would author, Nikolai Gogol stress his absolutely terrible name repeatedly? So I started thinking of the general purpose of this passage. Sure, Akaky does his job perfectly over and over again, but he is so underdeveloped that when he is asked to do work which "consisted only of altering the heading and in places changing the first person into third," (Gogol 308) he opts out because it would take "so much effort".
So clearly, this guy isn't the most motivated. But, I try to understand all sides of the story. Should Mr. Akakievich be repeatedly referred to as his full, dismal, name, every time? Maybe not. But through this action, Gogol does give the connotation that Akaky isn't necessarily a great man.
In conclusion: yes, the repetition does implement the idea that Akaky is basically a loser to put it bluntly, but not, he I wouldn't think that he should be called his name repeatedly.
Come on, father of Akaky. That's not cool.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Knowledge is Power
Over the break, I took an SAT class, and had to write an essay. I don't remember the question down to the very last word, but the gist of it was basically if great knowledge was necessary in order to challenge conventional ideals.
It made me stop and think for a second. Yes, knowledge is always necessary, but these ideals must be conventional for a reason. But then I realized that in fact, everything at some point will be questioned.
For example, no one would have every thought we could fly back in the 19th century. That was the conventional way of thinking. But the Wright Brothers, with their extensive knowledge on aerodynamics, proved them all wrong.
The point is, knowledge is power. Thoroughly and clearly understanding a topic is the only way to give yourself a chance to fight against conventional ideas. No, not all of what is challenged can be altered, but by all means will it be considered if it is presented with knowledge.
Whoever made the quote, knowledge is power, wasn't simply saying it to be famous or whatever. He/she said it with a purpose, and it is what allows society to continue to grow and change the way it has in the past.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"-Albert Einstein
It made me stop and think for a second. Yes, knowledge is always necessary, but these ideals must be conventional for a reason. But then I realized that in fact, everything at some point will be questioned.
For example, no one would have every thought we could fly back in the 19th century. That was the conventional way of thinking. But the Wright Brothers, with their extensive knowledge on aerodynamics, proved them all wrong.
The point is, knowledge is power. Thoroughly and clearly understanding a topic is the only way to give yourself a chance to fight against conventional ideas. No, not all of what is challenged can be altered, but by all means will it be considered if it is presented with knowledge.
Whoever made the quote, knowledge is power, wasn't simply saying it to be famous or whatever. He/she said it with a purpose, and it is what allows society to continue to grow and change the way it has in the past.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"-Albert Einstein
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Underground?
"Notes from Underground", "The Underground Man". Common denominator? Underground. What is the purpose of the use of the word?
Underground-contrary to prevailing culture: separate from a prevailing from a social or artistic environment, and often exercising a subversive influence.
According to that definition, provided by the services of bing, underground seems to be a pretty accurate description of what Dostoevsky is trying to portray in the novel, contrary to how we believe the word "underground" as simply beneath the surface.
This Underground Man is definitely influenced in the ways he operates. He seems to run his life trying to impress and be accepted, clearly influenced by the desires of society.
So this whole "Underground" concept really does work. It's an interesting use of words, and it really fits the description of this man like a piece of the puzzle.
But then, there's the "notes" part. Notes-aren't they those things you write during class when the teacher is giving a lesson? Well, specifically, "notes" means a jotted record or summary. So, in conclusion, the title technically means the jotted record of someone separated from society who often exercises a subversive influence to society.
I would say that's impressively accurate, and on its own, gives quite the overview as to the personality of the main character in this novel.
Underground
Well played Dostoevsky, well played.
Underground-contrary to prevailing culture: separate from a prevailing from a social or artistic environment, and often exercising a subversive influence.
According to that definition, provided by the services of bing, underground seems to be a pretty accurate description of what Dostoevsky is trying to portray in the novel, contrary to how we believe the word "underground" as simply beneath the surface.
This Underground Man is definitely influenced in the ways he operates. He seems to run his life trying to impress and be accepted, clearly influenced by the desires of society.
So this whole "Underground" concept really does work. It's an interesting use of words, and it really fits the description of this man like a piece of the puzzle.
But then, there's the "notes" part. Notes-aren't they those things you write during class when the teacher is giving a lesson? Well, specifically, "notes" means a jotted record or summary. So, in conclusion, the title technically means the jotted record of someone separated from society who often exercises a subversive influence to society.
I would say that's impressively accurate, and on its own, gives quite the overview as to the personality of the main character in this novel.
Well played Dostoevsky, well played.
Friday, February 8, 2013
The Reality of an Underground Man
In Notes from Underground, author Fyodor Dostoevsky writes of this "underground man". This man is portrayed as one who is independent, strong, and powerful, but in reality, he is isolated, weak, and not necessarily powerful. The thing is, the Underground Man is not prepared to accept this reality. He uses scapegoats on himself to make it seem as if he is in complete control of his life. The first line of the novel states, "I am a sick man...I am a spiteful man" (1). It is as if he wants to gain an upper hand on the reader by beating the reader to the punch in calling himself a sick and spiteful man.
Reading this though, I came to a realization of sort. It's interesting to me how we all are bagging on this man for being the way he is, but let's face it, we all have a little bit of the underground man in us. We all strive to be independent, but for this generation, are we really with all the rules, guidelines, and eyes watching over our every move. It raises this question: Are we all underground men and women?
We all do things here and there to come off as strong and independent, and not to seem so "spiteful" and "wicked". We all want to be accepted into society, but in many cases, the reality of ourselves prohibits us from letting go the way this Underground Man does.
Even now as I'm writing this, I don't think I'm any sort of Underground Man, but as I think deeper into the bowels of my brains, I realize I don't want to come off as him, and that to a certain degree, we are all like that.
So maybe, just maybe, I can give this guy some slack throughout the novel, and accept him the way he is instead of judging him. After all, he might just be the genuine person that hides inside all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)