Telling is Listening

In the article "Telling is Listening: Ursula K. Le Guin on the Magic of Real Human Conversation," the author stressed the importance of real human communication and the methods of how conversation is received by other humans. However, when I was reading Le Guin's analogy about the two boxes, Box A and Box B, I couldn't help but make connections to the HBO series "Westworld." In Le Guin's analogy, she states that communication between the two boxes are connected by a transmitter. When Box A sends a message, it must carefully code the information so the transmitter may act as a medium to carry the message to Box B. On the other end, Box B is programmed to receive and decode the message. While Box A and Box B are meant to symbolize human consciousness and the ability to code and decode verbal or nonverbal messages, Le Guin also states that one box could symbolize a human and the other a computer. Later in the article, Le Guin also relates communication to sex between amoebas -- each unicellular organism is able to swap internal genetic information with another amoeba, unlike human reproduction, a one-way system. This relates back to the example of human consciousness versus a computer, which brings me back to my connection of this to "Westworld." In the series, communication is pre-programmed for the Hosts (Hosts in the show are essentially "robots" controlled by artificial intelligence). The Hosts are shown to be inferior to the Guests (human visitors to the park) because they are programmed to be at the disposal of the Guests. However, although the Hosts are programmed to give and receive information in specific ways, therefore following specific patterns in their day-to-day lives. This reveals how the Hosts and Guests are not much different in the way each functions. This reminds me, like the article did, the importance of genuine human conversation and connection. Furthermore, it brought to light how the way communication is received and deciphered by another determines consciousness and humanity.

Cormac McCarthy Punctuation Rules

In the article "Cormac McCarthy's Three Punctuation Rules," there is a discussion about how the use of punctuation can overcomplicate writing. Cormac McCarthy, author of The Orchard Tree, is said to be highly influenced Neoclassicism English writers. However, unlike the style of many authors of this period, he believes that punctuation is often unnecessary. While punctuation is often used to provide clarity of who is speaking and to separate items or thoughts, McCarthy keeps punctuation to a minimum to provide clarity. In his writing, he never uses semicolons and has only used a colon once in all of his published works; McCarthy even omits the use of quotation marks entirely, forcing him to reimagine the way dialogue should be presented. Although his minimal use of punctuation is "to make it easier, not to make it harder," some of his works have been met by frustration by his audience and literary critics. Nonetheless, McCarthy's unconventional simplified syntax has surely challenged readers to rethink the way that punctuation is used in modern literature.

GoST - Anti-Bildungsroman

I was reading a New York Times article, "A Silver Thimble in Her Fist" by Alice Truax, and she brought up an interesting point that The God of Small Things is actually an "Anti-Bildungsroman "because Estha and Rahel are never able to live a proper childhood or experience a genuine coming-of-age. Though the twins have escapist techniques to remove themselves from the family's overall discontent -- Rahel's imagination and Estha's love for Elvis Presley and The Sound of Music -- their childhood wonder is exploited early in their lives. The catalyst of this loss of innocence is Estha's molestation by the Orangedrink Lemondrink man. After this event, Estha's outlook on life becomes much too pessimistic for a child of his age, however, because Estha is cognizant of the unpredictability and horrors that life can bring he tries to protect Rahel's innocence. Estha's fear of the Orangedrink Lemondrink man coming to find him in Ayemenem leads to him trying to protect Rahel by crossing the river to the History House -- the scene in which Sophie Mol dies. Sophie Mol's death is also a factor of the twins' loss of innocence, but not only because of the responsibility and guilt they feel. Because Baby Kochamma blames Velutha for kidnapping the twins -- leading to Velutha being beat to death -- the twins also feel responsibility for Velutha's death. The God of Small Things as an "Anti-Bildungsroman" brings to light the dangers of the exploitation of childhood and the effects it can have on a family.

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/25/reviews/970525.25truaxt.html

'The God of Small Things' is the Book That Changed My Life

In the article "The God of Small Things is the Book That Changed My Life," there is one point that Mai Nardone makes that truly resonates with me. Towards the end of the article, Nardone mentions that Arundhati Roy's novel holds similarities to dystopian novels in that it issues "the same warnings..., only less explicitly." Based in a country experiencing wakes of both communism and colonialism, Nardone explains that the characters living in Kerala are "caught in the orbit of local norms and societal pressures." In a dystopian novel, once a character is able to break from this orbit, he realizes that the pressures of society and of how someone should live come from within. One example of this in The God of Small Things is the idea of "love laws." The "love laws" stand as guidelines for the characters -- these "laws" issue warnings about how one person should love another and the dangers of loving someone too much. These love laws bring the characters outside of their bubble and bring them into a realization of the heartbreak and disappointment that life brings. Much like a dystopian novel, reading The God of Small Things forces us out of our comfortables scope and "takes us outside the sort of thinking to which we're accustomed." Nardone adds that because the intended audience of The God of Small Things is English speakers, Arundhati Roy directly brings us out of our comfort zones and forces us to face the reality of life in other parts of the world.

Single Story - GoST

The epigraph of The God of Small Things states a quote by John Berger, "Never again will a single story be told as though it's the only one." While Arundhati Roy's purpose of using this statement puzzles me (as I haven't yet read the entire novel), this quote obviously has meaning to the story. In every story told, perspective plays a quintessential role in portraying events and the opinions of those involved. However, as we learned earlier in the year from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED Talk, "The Danger of a Single Story," learning only from a single perspective can be hazardous and create a one-dimensional outlook on the world. Another person who addressed the idea of the single story is Susan Sontag in the article we read,"Susan Sontag on Storytelling." In Sontag's words, she states: "we can’t tell all the stories — certainly not simultaneously. We know we must pick one story, well, one central story; we have to be selective." Here Sontag takes a slightly different perspective on the issue but she conveys a very similar message. To Sontag, every story holds truth within another and humanity is joined together by the centrality of the messages. In The God of Small Things, it seems as if the danger of miscommunication -- the single story -- is what will tear the family apart. Though we are all different, every human has similar desires, goals, insecurities, and internal battles. Roy's use of this John Berger quote as the epigraph foreshadows that the single story, or perspective, will bring conflict.

Article:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/03/30/susan-sontag-writing-storytelling-at-the-same-time/

Ammu, Estha, and Rahel - GoST

So far in The God of Small Things, there is a central message about unrequited and complicated love. At the end of the first chapter, Arundhati Roy comments on many things that have "laws" in the minds of Rahel and Estha -- some of which are as simple and inconsequential as the classification of jam and jelly and some which are much more complex, such as love: "They all tampered with the laws that lay down who should be loved and how" (31). Estha and Rahel, despite their unconditional care for their mother Ammu, have complicated feelings about how they love their mother. Ammu is a detached mother and has more feminist ideals than many other women of her time. She also sometimes has a temper which Roy refers to as an "Unsafe Edge" (44). Because of this, Estha and Rahel are confused about how they should feel about their mother, "Sometimes she was the most beautiful woman that Estha and Rahel had ever seen. And sometimes she wasn't" (44). However, Ammu's emotionally detached aura and independence doesn't mean she is indifferent about how her children are raised. In fact Ammu truly does care about Estha and Rahel but her complicated past (her toxic marriage to Baba) created an internal battle that Ammu has to fight everyday. Nonetheless, I've found that this "law" of love that Roy introduces in the first chapter is prevalent throughout the first few chapters of The God of Small Things."

Irony and Hypocrisy in "Untouchable"

In Untouchable by Mulk Raj Anand, there are several instances of irony and hypocrisy. First and foremost, the caste system is hypocritical in itself. Though people are expected to be upstanding citizens to make it into the upper-castes, they treat the people of the lower-castes extremely poorly. Furthermore, despite the untouchables being unable to receive pay for their work, they are often required to pay more for goods than people of the upper-castes. This is seen when Bakha is cheated out of his money when buying candy in the market. Another instance of irony is when the priest molests Bakha's sister, Sohini, then blames her for touching him and defiling the temple. This irony embedded deeply in the caste system raises the question of whether people actually believe the untouchables are ridiculously inferior and unsanitary, or if they simply just try to exercise their "god-given" power and status. Nonetheless, if these people truly believe that good deeds and high morality will grant them a spot in the upper-castes during their next lives, most people would act more charitable and humane towards the untouchables.