I personally like foreshadowing and there are some of that in the God of small things. When Pappachi knew the moth he discovered was named after other person, he gets really angry and kind of foreshadows what is going to happen. "Its pernicious ghost-gray, furry...It tormented him and his children and his children's children."(pg.48) And this actually happens as the stories goes on by representing Rahel's fear by depicting moth.

Moth had appeared several times in this book. Whenever Rahel got fear from something, description about moth represented the fear she was getting. "A cold moth unusually dense dorsal tufts landed lightly on Rahel's heart. Where it's icy leg touched her, she got goosebumps. Six goosebumps on her careless heart. A little less her Ammu loved her."(pg.107) This is the quote from the incident when Ammu was mad at Rahel because of Rahel said something inappropriate.

I can see some forbidden loves in this book. The love between Velutha and Ammu was quite shocking because Velutha is untouchable. Also, the love between Rahel and Estha was shocking too. I felt Ammu will be in love with someone, but I never imagined and thought about Rahel and Estha having sex. I think Roy tried to emphasize the power of love by forbidden love or was just a big fan of love.

Almost entire book was just full of tragic, bad, sad events. For example, people's death such as Velutha and Sophie Mol, betrayal between people who had tight relationship between them, and tragic(?) family background of Rahel and Estha's family. However, although Velutha died, I like how the story ended. Roy described the love between Velutha and Ammu and I felt like the story had a happy ending.

Arundhati Roy didn't narrated(wrote) the story in chronological order. This made me that I actually become the narrator and think back some important stories from the past. Also, Arundhati Roy foreshadows some of the events that will happen later. All of these skills she used increased the tension in this book and made the book more interesting.

It made me feel terrible that Vellya Paapen betrayed his son because he didn't wanted to get into trouble. I wouldn't do that if my son was in the same situation. But at the same time, I could understand Vellya and thought about the caste system once again. He didn't betrayed Velutha because he hated him. Vellya knew what is going to happen to them since he and Velutha are UNTOUCHABLES. So it was like a moral vs cruel reality.

The book is about the life of a family in India where has stricted caste system. Because of this caste system, there are lots of troubles and problems in India. The family in this book started as a high ranked family, but as times go on, people started to go into the lower rank. To top of the hierarchy to the bottom of the hierarchy, this is really impossible I think. However, as the author make this happen in the book so that she can bring readers' attention in to the book. I felt really fascnating as reading this book, only because of being white, the person is top of everyone else, and other low ranked people cannot do anything they want. Reading this book reminded me there is a severe caste system in India, and lots of people are having hard time becauase of it. Moreover, as the author using Analepsis and Prolepsis a lot, I could feel and read book well although it was hard to read at first. I've enjoyed this book!

In the God of small things we can find many themes. One of these, which was interesting to me, was discrimination in terms of social class. This story happens in India which has social hierarchy. It's called caste system and the people lowest class in that system are considered. In this book, Velutha, Vella Paapen, and Kuttappen belong to the untouchables. Arundhati Roy showed this cruel social discrimination by giving story of Velutha. "They woke Velutha with their boots. Esthappen and Rahel woke to the shout of sleep surprised by shattered kneecaps...They heard the thud of wood on flesh. Boot on bone...The gurgle of blood on a man's breath when his lung is torn by the jagged end of a broken rib. What Esthappen and Rahel witnessed that morning, though they didn't know it then, was a clinical demonstration in controlled conditions of human nature's pursuit of ascendancy. Structure. Order. Complete monopoly....at least biologically he was a fellow creature...No means of gauging how much or how permanently they had damaged him."(pg.292-293) This quote shows how cruel the caste system is.

Ammu drives to the riverbank and somehow she knows that Velutha will be there. Velutha also knows that ammu will be there. While Velutha was swimming at the river, Ammu arrives and Velutha swims toward her. They make love. Velutha is afaid of the consequences. He is afraid of getting caught making love with Ammu and he will lose everything. He'll lose his job, livelihood, everything. But as they start to make love, Velutha is not afraid anymore. His fears are gone as Velutha feels the love he has for Ammu. He is ready to give away everything for this love. This ending was very something. The two different class loving together, in a class structure society. The book was telling all the terrible tragics, and very lovely ending in the end. It is all those terrible tragics that makes this ending so beautiful and lovely. I enjoyed this book and I think it is very wonderful.

Dear Bloggers, I have to which I have no answer. As rather well cultured westerners with pretty decent ideas of the world outside of the U.S. is this book important? Have we really learned all that much, or have we just read digested and stored in the depths of our memory ignoring it for analytical purposes. Are books important? Novels, do they really even teach us all that much? Is it important, or is it all just part of a silly neverending search for material knowledge? Is this kind of material knowledge that is important? And maybe a smaller question than that, for the sake of the small things, are they important. The small things, the things that will undoubtably dissapear in time in life or in death? and is this book helpful at all? Do we feel smarter or more enlightened?

The character dynamics in the book really shape the attitude of it. You can tell that the relationship between Ammu and Baby is tense. This changes the relationship between the twins and Baby K. Also, there is an underlying something between Ammu and Chacko. Chacko feels like he is more superior, due to him being male. Mammachi and Ammu also have a strained relationship. This is probably due to the fact that Ammu married Baba and then they divorced. Ammu is kind of the odd one out of the family. This really reflects on the children. They are sort of put into a position where their whole family doesn't like them as much as they could. This really changes how the children feel about themselves as well i think.

Dear Bloggers, As promised a quick conversation on writing style. Sometimes when reading TGOST I feel a little like a dunce, the kind of dunce that takes the short bus to school and writes out the multiplication tables thirty or forty times, not because it's for punishment but because it is the only way I will remember it. Now I realize this is a little unfair because come to think of it I sometimes forget my multiplication tables and maybe writing them down would help. But I think the gist of what I'm saying is understood. The repetition of TGOST is infuriating, but yet it fits with the context of the book. The emphasis is all on the little things, things that if this were a novel from the sixties or seventies would hardly even be looked at would be dismissed as a piece of dialogue or a writers attempt at providing character background, but they would never be emphasized and repeated in the same way that they are in Ms. Roy's stellar modern novel. Often in novels from the post modern era, character were used as ways to look at the scene and agree with it or criticize it or critique it but there thoughts were in long continuous rants never repeating often contradicting their own thoughts. The little things, like rape and a mothers love, were rarely considered important or even dangerous topics. Authors were spellbound by vicious deaths, by penis-statues (Clockwork Orange) or apocalyptic scenarios where the world freezes leaving poets and journalists (cat's cradle) murder, mayhem, feck the scene man (One Hand Clapping) it's all scene. That's what was enthralling. The world obsessed with perfection or at least happiness (The Dharma Bums) what with the masses all reading Suzuki's books on Zen buddhism. It was all about the scene, not being a part of it, being on the train, the wagon, it was all the scene, no matter where you are in that scene. But it made sense the world was so close to being blown to pieces of course the whole thing would be happiness or death. But now, now, we're just confused lost with what we're supposed to do. We're no longer at the base of life, no longer fearing death now we're grasping for meaning and we have no idea where to look. So what do we do. We search in the corners and the crevases, looking for all the small things.

On page 299, when the children and Baby K are at the police station, and the children first see Baby, it says, "The sight of Baby Kochamma made them suddenly sober. The moth with the unusually dense dorsal tufts spread it's wings over both their hearts." Throughout the book the moth has popped up here and there. But after reading this line, I realized that the moth meant sadness, and a weight upon your heart. I feel as if this line ties alot of things together. The suffering of Pappachi, and sort of the end of their childhood innocence.

I find it very disturbing that sex and violence are a large part of this story, because it takes away from the true meaning of the story and creates and second story that people will argue about, which isn't really necessary and it also ruins the mood whenever something that involves abuse or harassment becomes a part of the story. In areas of the world were abuse, and sexual harassment are not addressed, it makes me wonder why there would even be a thought about why it would be okay for something so hurtful to go on in any country, city or even household. It may be that Roy wants us to realize how bad it really is or is she telling the readers to deal with it and that you can't change it no matter how hard you try.

If I were to read this book again, I would like to spend more time on it and not rush through it as much as I feel I have this semester. The book is such a work of art that I feel like I need time to digest it and process everything that happens. The prolepsis and analepsis is a wonderful way to write this book, but it is good to have time to comprehend everything, and put the pieces of the puzzle together.

"The God of Small Things" ends with a vivid, powerful description of one of many amorous encounters between Ammu and Velutha. I guess this is why the book "started in the end and ended in the middle". AT the very end, she recalls when Margaret Kochamma asked if "Indians do that to each other, too" referencing the 'sniffing' that she thought Indian men and women did. Though this previously insulted Ammu, at the end of the book, she finds it funny because she thinks, "Yes, Margaret, we do it to each other, too." (Roy 321).

My impressions of this book and what I thought would happen and how things really did turn out changed constantly. I originally thought that Sophie's death would be an adhesive for the troubled crumbling family and that it would reunite them over the loss of what was most precious to all of them. Unfortunately, it only made things worse.

It says that for thirteen more nights after the described one "they stuck to the small things". (Roy 320). In their own little world of Small Things, Ammu and Velutha could be who they wanted to be and do what they wanted to do. But when Sophie is introduced into the world of Small Things, everything goes horribly wrong, and it is a warning about what happens when these two worlds coincide. Pappachi's moth was a constant reminder of what was really going on.

Arundhati Roy's style of writing really floors me. She really thinks about everything that she writes. There isn't one word that is out of place. Her words flow together and create a graceful and beautiful story, that, if told any other way would be boring. Sometimes, when I read the book, I don't even realize that a tragedy has occured, because it is put so well. In the future, when I am writing a story, I hope to do the same as Roy does, and make every word important and necesary.

Dear Bloggers, I would like to talk about a quote on page 170, "littleangels were beach-colored and wore bell-bottoms. Little demons were mudbrown in Airport-Fairy frocks with fore-head bumps that might turn into horns. With Fountains in Love-in-Tokyos. And backwards-reading habits." For those of you who are far ahead of this page and have already forgotten the context I will help by saying that Sophie Mol has just arrived at the Ayemenem house and is being greeted by the blind Mammachi and the Hobbitish Kochu Maria, who of course refers to her as a little angel. Maybe I have become repetitive or if not me maybe I am only repeating, but I am fed up with these love laws. And the emphasis on race in this book. Maybe it justified, and I certainly agree that the concept of love laws is the most ridiculous dehumanizing thing I have ever heard of, yet I believe now Ms. Roy is beginning to lose my sympathy for the whole racial part of the book. I acknowledge it is part of the style, which the book is written in. Countless repetitions of phrases and concepts mulled over and digested by both the characters and the readers. Yet in this particular quote I begin to find her unbelievably frustrating. First of all, just because Sophie Mol is called a beautiful angel does not mean that Rahel is a demon. Second of all, can we all not agree that Rahel has been a little exasperating in the chapters before this? As if she's not a frustrating character in the first place. Perhpas that was the intent of Ms. Roy, and I speculate that it was. She is rather similar to Ammu. Who I also find to be an incredibly antagonizing character, however I do respect her spunk. Now to continue with the original topic of this post. Quite frankly as I get to know more of Margaret Kochamma, I can't help but feel that she is a rather unintelligent, insensitive, clueless white girl. Which is I'm sure how Arundhati meant her to be portrayed, but even that is a sense of racism. Sophie Mol is portrayed as a disinterested snobby lobster who sees little or no reason to be in India other than the reasons that Margaret has spoon fed her. Maybe I am the only one who feels that way, and maybe it is because as a white male I feel defensive and guilty about the atrocities committed in India, and all around the world. Because truly these problems are not unique to India. But earlier in this blog I talked about the repetition of the writing, I think that is a far more interesting topic and I plan on writing about it in another blog.

Arundhati Roy has a very interesting style of writing that is both intriguing but also has a sense of reality. She uses time very lightly in TGST, by skipping around the characters' lives making it hard to know where you are in the novel. Roy often uses elements of nature to correspond with the story along with elemental symbols like the moth or the river that runs through Ayemenem, and how it destroys and brings together the story at more times that one.

A few more thoughts on the end of the book-

What I noticed in the last chapter, the last page even, was that perhaps Ammu does actually love Velutha. For the longest time, I refused to believe that, choosing to think instead that she wanted a thrill, drama, ect.. But, as described it, Ammu, Rahel and Estha had "loved a man to death".

On another, slightly less important topic, the History House. The 'history-shaped hole in the universe". I found so much irony in the fact that Velutha was killed there, with the kids watching, unknowingly. The History House, their sanctuary, their safe haven, the one and only place, turned into the place their beloved friend was murdered innocently. One of the very few safe and good things in their lives was finally ruined, along with everything else in the book.

A little bit more on Baby K. -

First of all, the police station section. On one hand, I was astonished and absolutely sickened by what was happening, but at the same time, I was not completely surprised about Baby Kochamma's behavior. But all the same, it was so twisted of her to manipulate Estha and Rahel into telling the lie about Velutha. But then again, she was only doing what she had to do to protect her family, right? What would any of us do in her position? And, like she said, and like was true, Velutha didn't even make it through the night. But I still think she was wrong for hurting the twins by saying that they were murderers.

I think Baby Kochamma would be a really good character to do an analysis on.

For one thing, she's got a great back story.

Secondly, her motivations are never 100% clear, in almost everything she does. She seems to be just a bitter, mean old lady, especially towards the end of the book, but at the same time, you can tell there's something else behind it.

She doesn't develop very much as a character throughout the book, instead staying more or less the same, but judging by her past, she's changed immensely since her youth.

I was very intrigued by tracking Chacko's progress from his younger self to his older, educated self. One thing from that time period that I found really reflected his and Margaret's relationship was that she loved Chacko, but even more, she loved the self acceptance she gained through him. And I think it was a two way street.

Although that might not sound like the healthiest relationship, I think it actually is. I think that you should be with someone that not only do you love/care about, but also someone who makes you embrace yourself as fully as possible.

Arundhati Roy is a great writer. She gives some characters very minimal detail so that the reader can have their own imagination and that particular character. She also has symbols for different characters, she spells certain words based on the way they sound, and she gives the book a twist by putting flash backs and flash forwards. This is a book that you have to digest. You have to take this book slow and steady so you can have a better understanding.   

Ammu and Velutha I think would have been a good couple. Things would have worked out great. If the family was more open to acceptance. Even though he is not in the same system as she is, things would work out fine. 

"There is very little that anyone could say to clarify what happened next. Nothing that (in Mammachi's book) would separate Sex from Love. Or Needs from Feelings." (Roy 310). In the events that follow, Rahel and Estha make love after not having seen each other for 20 years. Clearly they have a very passionate relationship. I don't want to sound like I'm bashing these two kids who were victims of their own childhoods and grew up in a world where misdirection ran rampant, but I think they're a little too close. When all the memories and emotions of their tragic pasts, it becomes a little too much to handle, so I guess sex was the only way they could escape from that. I still think it's a little bit weird.

In the book, it talks about Margaret and Chacko's first encounter. I really liked how it sort of showed a comparison between the young Chacko and the old Chacko. He told Margaret the joke with so much vigor and laughter. You can tell that he has always been humorous. But you can also tell that through time, and a divorce, Chacko had become more reserved. Also, I think that when he came back to India, he thought he was top notch because he had studied at Oxford. I think that when he was in England he had a smaller ego, and took himself a lot less seriously.

Throughout their childhood, Estha and Rahel were two peas in a pod, basically the same person. When Rahel came back to Ayemenem, there was an awkwardness, a strange barrier. It makes sense, because the had not seen each other in such a long time. It still surprised me a little though, because I was imaging their reunion to immediately pull Estha out of his quietness, and for Estha and Rahel to just go back to normal, as they were before Estha left for school and Rahel went to America. I guess my perception had always been that nothing could really break their bond.

At the end of chapter 20, the last thing that Estha yells at his mother and sister before the train pulls away is "Feeling vomity!" Recall that this is the same claim he made when he was abused by the Orangedrinklemondrink Man. After the train pulled out, Rahel doubled over in emotional pain, so I would assume that Estha did the exact same thing at the exact same time. The same thing happened when Ammu died, and they both felt a mutual compulsion to see each other in the hotel after the events at the movie theater. I bet they had some serious demons in the twenty or so years between the departure and the reuniting after Ammu's death that Roy didn't tell us about. The departure was one of the most deeply impacting events in the book, even though it was so short.

Baby Kochamma's inexcusable behavior completely desecrated this family and the deep and abiding bonds that it shared. It's mostly her fault that Estha became a mute, and it's her fault Estha and Rahel were separated for the majority of their lives. I don't get it either. Why did Baby Kochamma care so much about the extra-caste bond between Ammu and Velutha? Was it because it wasn't traditional? Then why BK care about Father Mulligan so much? Does the whole affair have anything to do with the fact that Velutha is not your average Paravan? It just doesn't make any sense.

God of Small Things remains to me to be a mystery. Most people are confident that it is meant to be Velutha, and I agree, but I feel like there so many hints of 'small things' in this book that I am not sure which is the God of all the others. I want to read this book again, because maybe then I will pick up on things I haven't noticed, and will understand more of the woven plot. The small things are the bits of life that form the whole terrible mess.

When i first started reading about Ammu and Velutha by the river in the end of the book I wondered whether Roy had wanted us to leave the book with the image of Ammu and Velutha or was it that he was dead, so she dreamt of him, which showed how much she had loved him when he was alive. For me it was about the dream. Roy has done really well with the scene of them and I feel as though it brings the whole story together. For Ammu it must have been very nice to see his face about and feel his heart beat. Her Body once again felt that love, that passion.

At the end of the book, Arundhati Roy started to expand story slowly. The last part was the climax of the book, as Velutha banished from mamachi and going back to his house, the author described this scene really well. Velutha was tired of everything, he cannot stand anymore world's ugliness. Eventually, Velutha died of policemen's beating. At the last, the author described how Ammu and Velutha make a love really accurately. The end of this book is really fascinating to readers.

In Ammu's dream, she dreams of the man with one arm who left no footprints. In the dream, she was happy. It says, "She could have touched him with her fingers, but she didn't. They just stood together. Still. Skin to skin." That was when I began to think it was Velutha, because he is an Untouchable. I am still really confused as to what peole think about the man having only one arm. And no trace, like a mirage, almost like the dream knew that Velutha wasn't there forever, and he would be there with Ammu for just a little while.

Chapter starts as Rahel sits on a train. On his way to be sent to his father. Outside the train, his mother and sister, Ammu and Rahel talking over the window. They promise they will write to each other and will soon be together. As the train pulls out, Estha starts to cry. He is scared of their promise will never make it. After years, the twins realize that their mother, Ammu has been played in a tragedy. They see her crying and sadness. The twins now feel guilty that they are the cause of her sadness and should have pretected her. After years, the twins sit together lying comfortly, fealing the love they have for each other. I wish at the moment, Ammu was with them and have another lovely person to love them and love her back. It would be such a happy ending scene for the story and for the twins. But the tragic had taken their mother, Ammu away form them and their promise was not able to reach.

The children is now at the police station, including Velutha. Inspector Thomas Mathew, the same one who heard Baby Kochamma's accusation. After questioning the twins, Thomas realize that they had made a mistake. Velutha did not kidnapped them. Thomas explains Baby Kochama for the mistake. Baby Kochama still wants to charge for the rape, but it has to be charged to the actual victim, Ammu. Now the police has to act for the mistake they had made. Thomas says that Velutha is more likely to die from beating. They had beaten a innocent man almost to death. I can't imagine this situation. If this case was happened in nowadays, it would be broadcasted all over the world for the tragic accident. Even it was not an accident, police can't beat up people. They have the right to arrest them but not allowed to use any violence. The sentiments toward the police would be a disaster. People won't believe police and it would be tragic.

I've just finished the book, and I think it was marvelous. I really enjoyed how it ended with the actual intense description of Ammu's and Velutha's relationship, and with Estha leaving on the train. For me it made their love so much more real, and his departure so poignant. Roy has used her great writing skills to engage the reader to the end.

The river is the background for most of the events in this book. Flowing on and on, it has the feeling of agelessness, as it has been there since the beginning of time. Everything in their lives involves the river, including Sophie Mol's death and Ammu and Velutha's relationship. Amma tastes river on Velutha's skin. Estha and Rahel played and rowed on the river, and it is constantly present in their lives, as it is right near the History House and Mammachi's house. The river plays a big part in everyone's life.

Although this family went through many huge and life changing events during their lives, the book also has a big focus on the "small things". Arundhati Roy has an uncanny knack for going into such brilliant (yet small) details, and this has only been accentuated as the book goes on. Sure, she tells the story of this family who live quite a crazy life, but she also acknowledges the little things in life that can make a more lasting impression on each of us than we'd ever suspect. For instance, on page 289: "They trudged...Past a deepblue beetle balanced on an unbending blade of grass." I just think that it is sweet little details and simple beauties like this that can make difficult situations a little easier.

"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" (pg 314). This is such a great reference to the whole book. It's used in context at the end of the book when Ammu and Velutha are by the river. It makes sense in this scene though it also applies to each character at the lose of Sophie Mol, and the lose of Velutha. However this is a song that suddenly plays in Ammu's head before she goes off to meet up Velutha by the river. They know they can't be with each other, its forbidden by Ammu since she is divorced, however she keeps going back to Velutha. They both know it's wrong, though they both love each other. Forbidden love, it's almost like a fairy tale. However this book is so raw and grippingly powerful that saying it's like a fairy tale would make it seem like a joke. Ammu and Velutha had limitations, this is the free life they wanted with each other, though they couldn't have it. The quote up above, just the fact that it foreshadows this whole event, almost makes it seem ironic.

the description of sophie mol's dead body was incredibly vivid. the thing that interests me the most though, is that it was never actually mentioned how she died, just hinted at. i liked the cloudiness of the description combined with the vividness of what was revealed about her mangled body. i think what happened to me was a sort of time travel into the future where i just saw myself as a mother finding her dead baby girl's body. i can't even begin to imagine how that must feel. nobody could ever recreate that horror, but i think Roy did a pretty spectacular job of it. not really describing the way Margaret felt, but more describing the scene. i think that perspective made her feeling stronger and more convincing. the other thing that i realized made it stronger was the fact that you kind of got to know Sophie a little and it sort of made you forget about her death. it was strange that when you first heard about her, it was about her funeral and death, not about her life, i think the reversal of the norm of life then death made it even more hard to beleive let alone accept. just something to think about. what are your thoughts?

Why did Velutha go to the History house after he was banished? Is there something about that place that he can relate to? It seems like a save haven for the kids when they want to get away from their lives.

Arundhati Roy uses Analepsis and Prolepsis in this book. I found a particular example of Prolepsis in the book. On page 181, there is a paragraph tells readers that somehthing terrible thing will happen to Velutha. Velutha let children paint his nails with red Cutex and when polices bit him up, they laughed at it at the end of the book. When I first read this part of the book, I did not focus on to this part. However, after I know that what happened th Velutha I remind the part what Arundhati Roy foretell the tragedy of Velutha.

The moth that has been haunting the Ipe family came out of hiding when Rahel and Estha were being interrogated. On page 300, "Inside the Inspector's room, Pappachi's Moth was on the move." As soon as Rahel and Estha walked in and saw Baby Kochamma in place of Ammu, the moth's icy wings touched their hearts, and the situation deteriorated. The way I see it, the moth is last of the small things, lost inside a world of big things. It was their misdirection and chaos that brought about the traumatic events (Orangedrinklemondrink Man, Sophie's death, Velutha's beating). Maybe this pestering moth is its own little God of Small Things. Or maybe its a reference to Velutha, trying to find his way in the maelstrom of the world of bigger things. This book can be analyzed in countless ways.

I am wondering why Estha and Rahel sometimes tend to read something backward. They are only 7~9 years old, but they could read well so that they read something backward because they think it is funny. However, when they read something in the school, Miss Mitten, teacher of Estha and Rahel, hated them reading backward, and made them to write they are not going to read anything backward again hundreds times. A few months later she was killed by a milk van that had benn reversing. Is this event mean Estha and Rahel is actual SATAN? probably not, but it is kind of scary that Miss Mitten was killed by driving backward car. Is this event related to what happened to Sophie Mol? When Estha and Rahel envied to Sophie Mol? I think Estha and Rahel actually have some weird power...

Estha's Two Thoughts: 1) Anything can happen to anyone. 2) It's best to be prepared. These thoughts are reoccuring throughout the mid/end part of the book. I am not sure what the twin's ages are, but I think these thoughts are important and are going to help Estha while he is trying to figure out the world. These thoughts are caused by his experiences in life so far. I wonder if Rahel is thinking of anything like this, and if these thoughts will help Estha in the future.

Rahel shows her anger at Ammu and her hatred towards Sophie Mol by squashing ants. Although Rahel's violence is only shown from the human perspective, the colony of ants can be seen as representing the people whom don’t pay attention to her or don’t see her like they see Sophie Mol. It also seems that the people in Ayemenem are just as weak and susceptible to violence or sudden death as the ants that she is killing.

Do you think that Sophie Mol wanted to play the game of going to the History House? I was wondering about this because of what Baby Kochamma says on page 300, while in the police station, "How you forced her to go with you although you knew that she couldn't swim. How you pushed her out of the boat in the middle of the river. It wasn't an accident, was it?" Do you think that the twins were jealous of Sophie Mol? Do you think she wanted to go with them?

The chapter goes back to tragic day. Six Policeman cross the river to find Velutha, accused for abduction. They attack the history house where Velutha and other children were sleeping in. When the policeman's came in the house, the Velutha was on the other side of verandah where rest of children was. The police kick Velutha to wake him up. Then they started to beat him. Childrens started to think it is not Velutha it is beaten by the police. They do not understand why they are beating Velutha this way. No man should be beaten by the police this way.

I was interested by the description of the Cochin Harbour Terminus. Roy described Rahel as an insect, a mosquito, scurrying through the bustle of the crowds. Rahel is subjected to the circus of the underground, malnutrition and children selling the toys that they have the privilege of owning themselves. The twins are described as having "no net to save them as they vaulted through the circus air". Why do you think Roy uses this metaphor on the children? How is it effective?

After the tragedy, Baby Kochama's household has been changed. Now at his house, live Baby Kochama and his cook, Kochu Maria. The house is in poor cared and is a mess. All they do is watch Television all day together. Blue plymouth is stopped outside unused, and the garden is overrun and uncared. Four Years before Rahel and Estha returns, the priest, Father Mulligan passed away. Since novice, Baby Kochama has been in love with the priest and still in her mind. She writes diary about him everyday.

Baby Kochama is being cruel to everyone, and she hates everything that she can. Baby Kochama wants everything to be her benefit so that she manipulate other people to satisfy herself. Moreover, she also manipulated mamachi when mamachi was angry to Velutha. Baby Kochama pretend to stop mamachi, but she actually made mamachi became more furious to Velutha and Ammu. I think Baby Kochama is a character who make all situations bad and do everything to satisfy herself. Even if child, Baby Kochama doesn't hesitate to threat children.

Why did the policemen viciously beat up Velutha in front of the twins? Did they know that the children were there? Even when they were "done" beating up Velutha the policemen still handcuffed him and dragged him away. This part of the book explains why Ammu was begging to the police chief why everything had been a mistake. What I have not figured out yet is why they the grownups thought to separate the kids after everything. Did they have a fear that the kids might try to tell the truth about how Velutha really died?

Why does Baby K. write to Father Mulligan even after he is dead? has she always done this even when she was at the abbey? Even when she doesn't have anything to say in her diary she still writes "I love you I love you". (p. 282).

When Ammu first met Velutha, she didn't feel a huge connection between the two of them. as she started to get to know him a little better she saw his inner beauty and saw that everything he did made him stronger and more characterized. "As she watched him she understood the quality of his beauty. How his labor had shaped him. How the wood he fashioned had fashioned him. Each plank he planed, each nail he drove, each thing he made molded him. Had left its stamp on him. Had given him his strength, his supple grace." She then knew that he was the one for her, but little did she know the abuse that would come along with the beauty and strength. Although Baby K. over exaggerated the situation and told the police that he had raped her which he hadn't. Ammu still loved him very much and missed him while he was in jail.

the author writes "On Rahel heart Pappachi' s moth snapped open its somber wings.

Out.

In.

And lifted its legs.

Up.

Down."

The author uses the moth as a symbol of emotion.

Sophie Mol says on page 276 "The absences of children, all children, would heighten the adults' remorse. It would make them truly sorry, like the grown-ups in Hamelin after the Pied Piper took away all their children . They would search everywhere and just when they were sure that all three of them were dead, they would return home in triumph. Valued, loved, and needed more than ever."

Do you think Sophie's Argument to go with the rest of the children was well thought out and planned?

"Witnessed that morning, was a clinical demonstration in controlled conditions of human nature's pursuit of ascendancy. Structure. Order. Complete monopoly. It was human history, masquerading as God's Purpose, revealing herself to an under-age audience." (pg 293) The event of Velutha's beating, Rahel and Estha witnessed this way to early on in their lives. It is terrible for someone so young, so vibrant in their early age, to be shocked and stunned by the destruction of what some would say "the real world." Though I would disagree that it isn't the real world, but the harsh reality of what the larger (more grown up) world can do. Shocking their minds at such a young age, with such a sharp image of Velutha's crumpled body, it will never escape their minds. They were beaten right along side Velutha. Two egged twins lost two great friends. There is nothing more terrible than growing up feeling guilty for both their lives.

After Sophie Mol had died Margaret Kochamma wasn't the same. She often thought about what had happened and how it had happened. Later we find out that their boat had capsized and that she simply didn't know how to swim, so she was forced underwater to drown. There might have been a point when Estha or Rahel tried to save Sophie, but at that age, I would assume that they themselves would be terrified. "Sophie Mol became a Memory, while The Loss of Sophie Mol grew robust and alive. Like a fruit in season. Every season." I'm not sure if Margaret will ever recover from the traumatizing experience of her own daughter dead before her eyes. I myself would feel almost dead or withered. Rahel and Estha also seem to have been extremely traumatized by the vision of there best friend drowning beside them.

In addition to the story line, I think the God of Small Things has a lot of good life lessons/morals in it. I found some quotes that I think have a good lesson in them, or apply to life itself, and not just the story line.

On page 272: "And there it was again. Another religion turned against itself. Another edifice constructed by the human mind, decimated by human nature." I find that this applies to one of the human race's biggest struggles, nurture vs. nature.

And on page 271: "It is not in the Party's interests to take up such matters. Individual's interest is subordinate to the organization's interest. Violating Party Discipline means violating Party Unity." This quote reminded me of another book I'm currently reading for European History, Germinal. In Germinal, the mine owners/share holders indirectly force the miners into dangerous working conditions by not paying them enough for timbering, so the workers will only mine for coal. They are only concerned about the money, about the establishment. I think that rings true here as well. They don't care for individual situations, but rather the establishment as a whole.

Roy shows that that the beauty is only temporary when the play ends, the actors go "home to beat their wives." In this other world, imagination and acting is safer than reality. Even seemingly good dreams like the ones that Ammu has about a one armed man, are full of violence and danger. The dream that Ammu has is both strange and full of symbolism. Ammu is floating in a sea that is menacing and fearfull but she is floating with a one armed man, which means that he somehow lost the arm in an act of violence. When she is awoken by the twins, she says she was having a pleasant dream, it was both violent and pleasant.

"Blood barely shows on a Black Man... It smells though, Sicksweet. Like old roses on a breeze." (Roy 293). In this chapter, we find that Velutha is practically the epitome of small things. When the policemen raid the History House, they nearly beat him to death and they heed no attanetion to his innocence or 'human-ness', for lack of a better word. Simply because he is an untouchable they see no reason to treat like a human being, just another useless Paravan. Even Estha and Rahel saw,as he was being beaten senselessly, that the laws of the world of bigger things are starting to encroach on the more peaceful, smaller things. Did his blood not show because he was "less human"? Did they smell his blood because there was one shred of hope for stability? What do you guys think?

In class today, when creating our diagram of the caste system in The God of Small Things, I realized how very complicated their social situation is. I think it was Noah who pointed out that their caste system is not a clean, flowing one. Not all parts are connected. There are gaps. There is over lapping. And although it is not usually the case, there are ways to skirt the system, to move up the ranks, such as was with Velutha. Of course, his case was a rare one for the times in India.

In any case, it's certainly a good thing to think about.

I have noticed that Roy talks about both “Big Things” and “Small Things”. The last line of chapter 6 contains a "Small Thing". "Just outside Ayemenem they drove into a cabbage-green butterfly (or perhaps it drove into them)." Not only does Roy take a moment to say something about something small, but she also shows that there are two perspectives to every story and that the “Small Things” are usually pushed aside and ignored.

The passage describing Velutha's walk back from seeing Mamachi was depicted in a way that captured everything Velutha must have been feeling. He had an outer body experience and he watched himself walk around in the rain. Roy described him as feeling "tired". I thought this word was very accurate in describing what he was feeling. Tired of the oppression, tired from work, tired of the hiding of his love.

On piecing together the death of Sophie mol I realized how tragic and preventable her death was. It was the way the family interacted and how unhealthy their relationships were, all of this contributed to the end of Sophie. They know how to hurt each other, for example what Ammu said to her children before they decided to cross the river. They only think about themselves/their image, when Baby and Mamachi tell the police that Ammu was raped when she wasn't. I was just wondering if anyone else had anymore opinions on the family's dynamics's.

I found the part of the book where Rahel is watching the story tellers was so beautifully depicted. The way Roy used sensory language in the passage to desrcibe the pain the actors felt underneath the masks and make up was so powerful. The actors, with no other talent or alternative, forced to rape their country of their ancient stories and perform them to tourists. "In despair he turns to tourism. He enters the market. He hawks the only thing he owns. The stories that his body can tell. He becomes a Regional Flavor".

Ive noticed the difference in the way the characters of the book feel towards Sophie Mol. They all claim to "love" her, and in some cases they do. Margret Kotchamma loves her because she is her daughter, and the same for Chacko. But in terms of the rest of the family, I think their love for her revolves around what she stands for rather than Sophie Mol herself. Because they are a family of Anglophiles they "love" Sophie Mol for her beach colored skin and background. She represents what they all wish to be.

Dear Bloggers, At the God's Own Country hotel, "History and literature enlisted by commerce. Kurtz and Karl Marx joining palms to greet rich guests as they stepped off the boat." Kurtz is an ivory trader who more or less fools the African natives into believing he is a demigod and then sets up a monopoly on the trade. Needless to say he is not a character Marx would usually rub elbows with. The reference to Marx is made with the mention of Comrade E.M.S Namboodiripad, the Chairman Mao of Kerala. But how are they linked? Is Roy referencing the fact that this disgustingly collosal hotel is being advertised as the former home of a communist, yet is trampling and mocking what is Marx's poverty stricken proletariat. The town of Ayemenem, is a perfect example of what Marx predicted would happen to all factory towns during the European Industrial Revolution. Everything that was once rich and prosperous becoming corrupt and broken down, a forgotten piece of insignificant economic history. Is it therefore fitting that "The history house" should become the centerpiece for a massive hotel exploiting the labor of the impoverished surrounding it? History... it's all history. The town that originally drew the owner of the house, is now gone. Swallowed by rotten slums, puking amidst the smell of feces. The history house. The history town. The modern hotel, post-historical.

Throughout the God of Small Things, I've been very interested in following all of the reoccurring themes/objects/symbols in the book. At first, I thought there were just a few very important ones, but now I've found many! Some of these are:

-the moth

-Orangedrinks/Lemondrinks/the OrangedrinkLemondrink Man

-Love-in-Tokyo

Those are some of the more obvious ones, but there are probably many more. What do you think is the point in using these various ideas/pictures in the book? I think they may be a sort of vehicle, helping to move the plot along. Also, what are some more of these?

i thought it is kind of odd that the family is so excited to see Sophie Mol but when they actually interact, everyone seems cold and distant. especially the twins. what do you think they were expecting?

not only the family from Ayemenem but also Sophie mol, she is very rude and icy. possibly its just that she isn't used to their customs and so she comes off as spoiled and high on a horse. but that clash of personalities was a surprise to me, because i rather assumed that Sophie would be welcomed in like a goddess. but instead she is sort of isolated. what are your thoughts on this?

do you think that Estha and Rahel retain that same "siamese soul" even when they have grown up? whenever the book describes them together when they're older, they seem distant and it seems like they have grown apart, yet it still describes Estha being able to feel Rahel in his mind. is it balanced? their separateness and togetherness? do they still have that connection? can the connection be the same but have grown with the children?

"she knew who he was-the god of loss, the god of small things. of course she did." (p. 210) "when he saw the children, something clenched inside him. and he couldn't understand it. he saw them every day. he loved them without knowing it. but it was different suddenly. now. after History had slipped up so badly. no fist had clenched inside him before.

her children, and insane whisper whispered to him.

her eyes, her mouth. her teeth." (p.202)

both Ammu and Velutha are suddenly realizing this attraction they have for each other. it might not have quite developed into an attraction right here but, he is noticing her, she sees him as a man and he sees her as a woman. instead of just some other human. what do you think promoted this sudden awareness both have for each other? why did it happen all of the sudden, it wasn't a gradual awareness, it was that eye contact and both felt it at the same time.

recently i have started writing alot of poetry. what interests me the most in poetry is the combination of unlikely words, diction. reading TGST, i have started noticing parallels between her writing and mine. i think Roy is very focused with her choice of words. it is very important to her that the meaning behind the words is slightly obscured because when you read it, the thing that captures your attention is the language. i was wondering what you all thought is more important to her, the use of language, diction or, the message she is conveying?

i think its an interesting thing to look at because most authors are really focusing on their point and their message. but i get a feeling that with Roy that is not the most prominent thing in her writing. i was just wondering what you all thought about that.

Hi All,

Tallied posts up to here!

Hope everyone had a good Long Spring-- I know I did!!

Lisa

Towards the end of the chapter Abhilash Talkies it discusses Comrade Pillai's political ambitions in the communist party, as well as his relations to the workers. On page 115 Roy tells us that Velutha is in fact a "card-holding member of the Party". It also depicts why this allegiance is actually harmful to Comrade Pillai's ambitions of beginning a revolution with the factory. Velutha's untouchability is still remembered by many of the workers, and he is of course resented, therefore the subliminal connection that is made between Velutha's untouchableness as well as his communistness will undoubtably be made. But that is not what find most interesting, as I've previously said communism seems to be much more of a rich boys ideal. Those people who can afford to give up, believe themselves willing to do so, in order to make themselves feel saintly or to achieve some sort of fantasy. (Karl Marx, the "father" of communism, lived in a rich part of London and had four servants, during the time he was writing the Communist Manifesto) So Velutha someone who was born into extreme poverty and through the kindness of wealthy patrons managed to drag himself out of complete torment. So why would he find a classless system, where this sort of thing would be close to impossible without the state's concession, to be so much more appealing?

"As lonely as a wolf. The God of Loss. The God Small Things." (Roy 274). So, I think it's become evident to everyone now that Velutha is the God of Small Things. He seemed like a not-so-important character at first, but eventually evolved into the most pivotal character in the entire novel. I guess it serves, then, to delve into what 'The God of Small Things' really means. It's my understanding that it has to do with all the chaos that came from the small things within the big things. It's like all the secrets from the History House and such, small things in this case, suddenly came out and just wrecked everything. In trying to preserve a little sanctity and order in their big world, characters like Baby Kochamma and Comrade Pillai have created more havoc, and have therefore made this book much more tragic with occurrences like Velutha's brutal murder. They can all be traced back to these "small things" though, and, henceforth, to Velutha, their deity.

"Hansel and Gretel in a ghastly fairy tale in which their dreams would be captured and re-dreamed." (pg 278)

Estha and Rahel, are stuck in a horor movie, their hopes and dreams are lost, now replaced with newer, more terrible ones. Roy describes the events after Sophie Mol's death with the description of Hansel and Gretel, how both Rahel and Estha are two lost kids just like them. Trying to follow the bed crumbs all the way home, but it is too dark to see the crumbs, to rainy that the crumbs might of washed away. Just like how Sophie washed away. Once it is lost to the river, nature takes care of the rest. Hansel and Gretel, Estha and Rahel, both lost kids who ran from home. Both scared for what will happen next. Both nervous about their futures. They don't know what will happen, but they know it wont be pretty.

Here are some questions I was asking in my head as I was reading, and I thought that you might be interested in answering:

1. What makes the characters in this The God of Small Things significant?

2. Chapter 11 is called "The God of small things." Why?

3. On page 254 it says "Work is Struggle. Struggle is Work." why did the character in this chapter write this?

"Sophie Mol became a Memory, while The Loss of Sophie Mol grew robust and alive. Like a fruit in season. Every season." I found this very notable. It is true that often the death of an individual becomes what they are remembered for, rather than what they did while they were alive. It seems to me that there are many more times that we hear about Sophie Mol's death than times that she was alive

Do you think that Comrade Pillia thinks that Chacko is a threat to him? They talk about the Union and how Chacko is becoming less of an overthrower and is turning into the rank of the To Be Overthrown. And how the workers will rebel against Chacko, but what if they rebel against Comrade Pillia afterword, Comrade Pillia would not have seen it coming and wont know what to do.

Pappachi wanted to the best for his family. He always tries to find a way to make his family happy, sophisticated, and proud. It was until a guy stole his idea of the moth that things started to go down. After this Pappachi started to change. He started to beat his wife more and his children. It wasn't until the kids got older that they were comfortable with Pappachi.

Chapter starts as Sophie mol wakes up in Chacko's house and seems to have homesick. Margaret and her daughter is using Chacko's room while their visit. Margaret's father did not support Margaret's wedding as he disliked the Indians. The story tells about Chacko and Margarets story as Margaret was a waitress in Oxford cafy and Chacko is a rhodes scholar.

"Revolution is not a dinner party. Revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence in which one class overthrows another." (pg 265) Comrade Pillai is threatening Chacko about Velutha and his presence in the factory. That there will be an uprising against him since he is a Paravan. "He deftly banished Chacko from the fighting ranks of the Overthrowers to the treacherous ranks of the To Be Over-thrown." (pg 265) Comrade Pillai wanted to take authority over Chacko though he "realized that what he really needed was the process of war more than the outcome of victory." (pg 266) Why did Comrade Pillai want this change to happen, was it because Comrade Pillai wanted to take revenge on Chacko and him running the factory. Or was it a specific revenge on Velutha being a Paravan?

Why did Ammu yell at her children when right before they were having a fine time after the nap? I think it might have been something one of the twins might have said. Ammu yelled at them and told them that she should have giving them away when they were first born.

Why does Margret Kochamma blame Estha for Sophie Mol's death, even though she does not know if Sophie Mol was killed by someone? I think it is because Margret Kochamma had never really liked Ammu and thought that it was unfair that her children got to live when she was a nobody and they have no father.

Dear Bloggers, I realize I asked my question but never really had the chance to discuss it. So I will use this post to do that. Why didn't Estha run, or yell or say anything? We know he felt powerless, it says so, 'Estha held it because he had to." (98) but could he not scream or protest in anyway? No. It was impossible, fear gripped him, it paralyzed him. We can ask what was he afraid of, the man? certainly not had he screamed people would of come, they would of heard him and they would of come to his aid, surely no one would of held him in the wrong. I think what it was that he was afraid of was people no longer loving him, no longer caring about him because he was no longer innocent. I think he blamed himself. After all it was his hand that held the Orangedrink Lemondrink man's penis. It was his but that the man pinched when he was done, and it was he who sat there drinking Lemontoolemon while seamen rolled all down his hand. How could anyone love him after he had just done all of this? How could he love himself? On page 101 after he had gone back into the movie theater, him and Rahel sit there asking the stern yet comforting, white, face of Baron von Trapp, if he could love them. To help him decide, they ask themselves a few questions comparing themselves to the children and people does love. I think question d says it all. Not only does it make them feel unloved it begings to sow the seed of self-loathing because for everything they are that is "wrong" Sophie Mol is "right". She is white, well-behaved, and has never held in her hand a strangers penis. And maybe if she has never done that, the Baron can love her. But never could he ever love them.

Dear Bloggers, I have a question. Why didn't Estha leave, or yell or say anything? Instead he allowed himself to be humiliated, raped even by a perveted old man. But was his mind really all that perverted or just his action. What I mean is did he rape Estha as a way to satisfy his terrible desires, or did he do it to exact revenge upon a society he felt has treated him unfairly. Is he just angry at his position in a post feudal yet hugely impoverished India? He has probably never even had the true chance to escape his predicament, maybe he has even climbed in the social ladder. I don't mean to play devils advokat, and I certainly am not excusing his actions, but I can't escape Thinking about what it was that he said at the end of the scene, "Now finish your drink, you musn't waste it. Think of all the poor people who have nothing to eat or drink. You're a lucky rich boy, with porketmunny and a grandmother's factory to inherit. You should Thank God that you have no worries. Now finish your drink." If I were going to speculate as to which side of the socionomic scale the Lemonorangedrink man grew up on, I would say it was probably the impoverished one. I would bet that seeing a young boy going into a movie, rich white people, who is able to buy cool drinks, instead of being grateful for the dirty, excrement filled river water, fills him with an unbelievable spite. To me it looks like a perverse action that subconciously translates to him literally raping the system, a much more malicious version of telling it to the man.

I think that Sophie Mol is symbol for love. I think she and her death remind the family of sadness and also love. Just like the moth, Sophie keeps appearing in in the book at random times, and each times it has something to do with the family.

We can tell from Arundhati Roy's description of Ayemenem that it is not especially well off. Though the Ipe family is more fortunate than the other residents, they are an exception. When Rahel and Estha go looking for Velutha, they encounter Kuthappen who is paralyzed and thus bound to a small shack-like residence away from any human connection besides Velutha and Vellya Paapen, ostracized from society. Even worse, however, was Velutha's "Untouchability" I find. This was a man extremely close to the Ayemenem house, and idolized by Rahel and Estha and yet, he was unable to shake off his rank as an untouchable. "The God of Small Things" paints a nasty picture of India's archaic, antiquated, obsolete caste system.

Hey Everyone,

I tallied posts and comments and recorded them. I'll bring a new inventory chart to class tomorrow!

Recorded at 1:30pm, Sunday, April 25, 2010.

Nice work all!

Lisa

There are so many things that we dont understand about Rahel and Estha. I was wondering if this was because Roy does not give us enough information, or if it was because we cant relate to them. They seem to make many strange choices and realizations but i cant seem to understand why?

This book is very central to love. There are mentions to loving more and loving less and loosing love and gaining love. People seem to be rated on how much they are loved, and the things that they do affect how much people love them. There may be a connection between the caste system and the way that people are rated with love.

The way the author writes words the way they sound is pretty cool. It makes the the readers get more interested in the book. It gets the readers closer to the characters in the book. Around the location where the family lives there are people whose english generally needs work and I find it fascinating that the Author tries to give that setting in this story.

Dear Bloggers, throughout the book Marxism and Socialism play a big role in the way people interact with eachother. It was the cause for strife between Pappachi and Chacko, it added an extra edge to the strange car ride to the "Sound of Music" in the chapter Pappachi's Moth, and it is a large underlying factor in Indian economy during the time period. However, of the main characters in the book the only self-proclaimed Marxist is Chacko. But Chacko is extremely priveleged compared to the rest of India. He has a car, a factory, as well as an Oxford education. Communism would dictate that he give up his car, and his factory and since it cannot truly strip him of his education it would not take that away but it would cause him to take a profession that maybe he was overqualified for. But to a man who has never had to live in poverty and has never been without food and a clean bed and water, a life of equality in equal poverty seems like a perfectly plausible ideal. But what about people who have spent their whole live without the same resources that Chacko, and ourselves, have had? Do you really think that they would be content to live in the same sort of poverty, with the only comfort being, "well at least nobody else is doing better."? I personally doubt that. In my mind communism is an idealistic fantasy for the rich. Only the priveleged have the ability to give up their already meagre possessions, and I know that as someone with possessions to give up it is really easy to look at poverty and social discremination and be like, "wouldn't it be really great if everybody was equal. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had money, by getting rid of money all together?" Well of course the obvious answer is yes it would be. But quite frankly I believe that if I were born at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, and I mean African tribe end or poor in India poor, that I would be saying something very different. And most likely what I would be saying is how the hell do I get myself to the top. And without going into a really long explanation one of the biggest issues with communism is that is truly difficult to climb the economic ladder in socialism, because there is no ladder to climb.

As I read on in the book I can see more and more how the twins are connected in ways other than "blood". There is something more to their relationship, something very powerful between them. For example, pg.182, "A pair of actors trapped in a recondite play with no hint of plot or narrative. Stumbling through their parts, nursing someone else's sorrow. Grieving someone else's grief." I found this very interesting because Roy is describing the twins as actors, "stumbling" though life and feeling what each-other feel. I think that the word "actor" is significant because they forced to hide their true feelings. Estha is tortured by his experience with the orangedrink lemondrink man but to frighted to tell his mother in case she wont love him anymore. I was curious if anymore had any other opinions on Estha and Rahels relationship

this book is a very personal insight into the way of life of this family. writing like that doesnt come from no where. i was wondering if you guys think this is possibly some version of Arundhati Roy's life? what kind of connection happens between book and author? trivial or vital?  

i was just noticing the amount of jumping around the story does. in my opinion, it works very well. because the story is told through two different points of view, and the older version of the twins and family is explained by the younger version. but the younger version is not merely an explanation but a story of its own. which i think is more effective, its a less obvious way of tying the plot together while still making it wildly interesting. 

i was wondering what all of you thought about the incorporation of sensory language in the story. do you think it is specific to the author's writing style? or specific to the book? what role does it play, how does it enhance or alter the story? does it work? i was just wondering what you thought.  

'Little Girls Playing Sweet. One beach-colored. One brown. One Loved. One Loved a Little Less.' (P. 177, 11~16) So, as I expected when I was reading the beginning, racism showed up. 'One beach-colored' and 'One Loved' indicate Sophie Mol whose mother is British and has white skin. When she came back to home, all the people welcomed her very well even Baby Kochama wants to be close with Sophie. However, 'One brown' and 'One Loved a Little Less' indicate that Rahel is not getting any true love from other people. Moreover, Rahel was wondering how much her mother love Sophie when Ammu talked to Sophie. Rahel seems like she is afraid of losing loves from people. However, since she is 'Brown' so that she is 'One loved a Little Less'. Rahel will have more difficult time in the future becuase of her race.

What happened to Estha by "Orangedrink Lemondrink man" was terribly shocking. I can't even imagine a seven year old boy could experience that. However I thought Estha was smart and wise boy to be prepared, for a seven year boy. Also when Rahel goes to the temple she sees Kathakali. When Kathakali started their play or a sotry, Estha joins her throuth the story. They were not facing each other nor having a conversation, but they were together by the story and thinking of their mother and their childhood. This scene was extremely moving.

When Sophie Mol died there was a lot of confusion on what had happened to her and if she had simply drowned and there were no people involved in the drowning of Sophie Mol. If Estha had indeed had something to do with the death of Sophie Mol I feel as though there would have been some resolution. Im not sure if I believe that Estha had something to do with it, but I do realize how Margaret Kochamma could have thought Estha had caused her daughters death. On Another side Estha could have indeed done something, but is so scared that he cannot begin to fathom what would happen to him if he admitted that he had done a terrible deed.

"She persuaded herself that a trip to India would be just the thing for Sophie Mol... She was haunted by that decision for as long as she lived." (pg 238) The book is finally at its turning point. Where everything is coming together, pieces of the puzzles are making sense, and the tragedy is at the doorstep. Though the thing I want to talk about is how Roy uses ways to describe people as hole's in the universe. Like "The stern schoolteacher-shaped Hole in the Universe (who sometimes slapped)" (pg 237) Why does Roy use this way to describe people? What image does it create for you and what are your thoughts behind her using this?

"Bluegreyblue eyes snapped open.

A Wake.

A Live.

A Lert." (pg 226)

Roy deliberately broke up the words and capitalized them to give them a stronger meaning and the sense that Sophie Mol was there for that precise moment. She isn't dead yet, she is fully and 100% there in that moment. This is a key moment on the time line, highlighted by the capitalization of words, and shown with specific space of each phrase.

Another thing in the book that stuck out to me was when Rahel felt Estha's presence. "Something altered the air. And Rahel knew that Estha had come. She didn't turn her head, but a glow spread inside her. He's come. She thought. He's here. With me." (pg 222) This symbolized their connection. How close their bond is, and how strong their Siamese souls truly are. How does this seem to change as they get older? Does that glow stop within them? Or does something put it out?

I love the writer's technique when she put analepsis in her story. "She climbed down and walked out to the verandah...It was midmorning and about to tain again...where years ago, on the day that Sophie Mol came...Things can change in a day."(pg.156) This quote connects Chapter 7 and 8 so well. Also, it was really easy and clear to imagine the situation that Rahel is in and I even felt like I actually became Rahel and thought about the past.

In this story, I found many interesting "Grammatical Errors". Most significant one was capitalization. I'm pretty sure that there is a reason for that but it is really hard to figure out the purpose. "For a Breath of Fresh Air. To Pay for the Milk. To Let Out a Trapped Wasp."(pg.29) This was from the paragraph which the narrator explained Baby Kochamma's specific purposes of her window. I'm not sure but I think the author used it to emphasize the weirdness of Baby Kochamma's action.

The story is getting really messy and it seems it's starting to get ruined. When Rahel comes back from states, Baby Kochama pressures Rahel asking how long she will be staying and what she will do with Estha. Baby Kochama watches TV all day long. It will be very sad to live like this. Living in with someone wants you out, no money, and nowhere to go. Most of all, Estha does not have an opinion.

I really like the way this book has connections and bridges the past and future/present. I find Sophie Mol an especially interesting character. I love her and the twins' relationship. Sophie Mol had such a different upbringing and life than the twins, yet they are not uncomfortable with each other. Also, Moths are a continuous symbol throughout the story. Papacchi was an entomologist, and when Rachel is sad and lonely it is described as a moth on her heart. I think that the moth is a special and important symbol for the family, but I don't quite understand what it means yet.

"Littleangels were beach-colored and wore bell bottoms. Littledemons were mudbrown in the Airport-Fairy frocks with forhead bumps that might turn into horns." I thought this was a very interesting observation made by Rahel at such a young age. Already she has been convinced that the white race is superior to her own. I think that her being in a family of Anglofiles has a large influence on her life and the way she views Sophie mol.

Why does Ammu get so angry about Margaret asking if the men and woman sniff each others hands? It explains why Ammu gets so angry and likes to make arguments, but if she (like everybody else) is trying to be nice to the visitors why would she want to embarrass herself and her ex-sister in law?

"You're not the Sinners. You're the Sinned Against. You were only children. You had no control. You are the victims, not the perpetrators." (pg 182) The weight of the world has been pushed onto their shoulders at such a young age. It pained me when I read this, knowing the death of Sophie Mol impacted not just their lives, but their souls, and their relations. Life is so short, and for them to be grieving the whole time, pains me. It hurt Chacko, it hurt Ammu, Rahel, and Estha. The whole family was heart broken and shook up. This grief this suffering is torturing to them all, and it is something they will never get over. Its branded to their souls. The wings of each moth (each soul) is constantly fluttering, shaken by the grief, throbbing by the pain, hurting by the lose, and tortured by the death.

when reading page 172, it talks about Pappacchi and his relationship with ammu and mammachi. He was abusive to both of them and beat them both while Chacko was away at school. One particular event that the author describe is when pappacchi cuts up little ammus boots. to her those are precious and he takes them and in 10 mintues they are only scraps of what they use to be. He takes alot of things away from the family and hurts them, i can see a little bit more why pappacci broke up his own favorite rocking char like he cut up ammus favorite thing.

While reading the god of small things Ammus and Veluthas relationship is coming out more and more into the open. On page 167 when Ammu sees velutha playing with Rahel, she sees how close they interact and how Velutha is almost like a father to her. I think ammu and velutha should come out into the open about there relationship, because you can obviously see that they love each other. There love reminds me of romeo and juliete, because its forbidden but yet they still want it to work.

Another Part of Ammus passing that effected me was when Rahel knew her mother was dead but Estha had yet to find out. She was talking about writing him a letter but she says" rahel neer wrote to him there are things that you can't do- like writing letters to a part of your self. to your feet or hair. Or heart." I find this passage powerful because it really shows how after all this time Rahel and Esthas bond is unbreakable. By time and anything else that challenges them.

On page 154, it talks about how Ammu died, and a certin quote "she was thirty one. Not old not young, but a die-able age" This quote stuck out to me because i was wondering is there really an age thats okay to die at? Yes its tragic when children die but at any age death is horrible. I felt for ammu who died alone with so much of her life unwritten and not complete.

I was confused when, in the airport, the Kochamma's were picking up Sophie Mol, they saw a celebrity, Andoor Basi, and Baby Kochamma, who is obsessed with popular culture, doesn't even bat an eye, and insults him and his acts of attention.

In this book, several things are randomly capitalized, such as, on page 94, Ammu says, "You haven't Learned your Lesson yet. Have you?" Sometimes in the text the things that are underlined, they are reacuring. This phrase does'nt come up again, at least not as far as i have read, and I'm wondering what the thoughts are on why Arandhati Roy uses this technigue, and what is being said about the characters.

What do you think Sophie Mols' first reaction of the Kochamma family was? Baby Kochamma was trying so hard to impress her and her mother, and even put on an English accent at one point. When they started singing the song in the car, I could only imagine Sophie's confusion and surprise.

On page 60, a man named Murlidharan is mentioned. He's the crosslegged crossing guard above a sign to Cochin. His description is of him being a lunatic, also he has no arms, and he wears a plastic bag on his head, fashioned to look like a chef's hat. I'm wondering what everyone thinks of him. At first, when I read about him I thought nothing of it, but then I read that segment again and started thinking about how he is the marker between their world and the city.

HELLO ALL,

THIS IS THE MARKER POST FOR THE MARKING PERIOD. I have tallied anything previous to this to give you credit for your posts. Keep posting, keep up the good work.

The better posts seem to reference the text and make a claim in the direction of analysis. Check out Sarah P's or Rob Civ's posts. Nate T-- nice job as well!

KEEP IN MIND YOU WILL MAKE A FORMAL WRITING ASSINGMENT BASED ON YOUR POSTS AND JOURNAL ENTRIES, so the better they are now, the less work you'll have to do later!

Lisa

And I have another question-

Why do you think that the moth is sensitive spot for the entire family?

It seems like something that wouldn't emotionally affect anyone but the person the incident happened to.

Where does the animosity between Baby Kochamma and the twins come from?

The obvious answer is that she thinks they are sneaky and untrustworthy, and that they will steal from her.

However, I think that there are other reasons for the animosity. It only started to surface as Estha and Rahel got older. Remember the bit about Ammu, Baby and Rahel in the bathroom? They were all loving towards each other then.

But as they get older, and move back in, I think that Baby Kochamma is secretly bitter about the attention the twins start to get. It's not always even positive attention, but it is attention nontheless. I think that Baby was (at least superficially) comfortable, if not happy, with her life, and took comfort in her small material world, and she didn't want anything to interfere with that.

On page 70, Rahel describes the mark on Velutha's back which confirms her suspicion that it was him at the Communist rally. "It had a light brown birthmark, shaped like a pointed dry leaf. He said it was a Lucky Leaf, that made the Monsoons come on time." (Roy 70). The timely arrival of the monsoon season plays in with the story quite nicely. Like the chaos brought about by monsoons, many of the affected areas undergoes massive change, rearranging, and destruction. The Monsoons do bring good, though, like a promising harvest season. So, much like their timely arrival, it plays in with "The God of Small Things" in the sense that Sophie Mol and Velutha's arrivals line up quite closely. This results in a string of chaos, including the death of Sophie and the revelation of Velutha's relationship with Ammu, which also leads to destruction. What the death does funcation as, however, is an adhesive for the members of the suffering family, which is like the goodness brought by the monsoons.

Rahel and Estha are some of the most remarkable twins that i have ever read or heard of. As young children they weren't siamese twins, but in the mid they were practically connected. It was as if they had a mental string that transfers all of the information from one brain to the other. As they grow older they make choices in there life that weren't necessarily they best choices. Rahel got married in the U.S., which ended up in a divorce. Estha decided not to go to school, which gave him a disadvantage for getting jobs and other opportunities. This gives me a false opinion about the twins because from the beginning i loved them and how they interacted, but as they got older they grew apart and i wanted them to stay close, but fate is fate and i can't change that.

When I look at all of the characters in The God Of Small Things, I am reminded again and again of Pappachi and how he was so upset that someone else had stolen his discovery and credited it for himself. This part makes Pappachi one of the most interesting characters, even though he has ruined his life with alcohol and stress, that is what makes him so interesting. I wonder if when he was a young child he was one of those kids who didn't seem like they liked anything, but deep inside he had some burning ideas and desires to explore the world.

Dear Bloggers, On page 52 Chacko talks about "The War of Dreams" in which, "We're prisoners of war... Our dreams have been doctored." I think what Chacko meant was that as citizens of India, a former colony of the disgustingly large British Empire, they have been practically brainwashed to worship western ideals and therefore unquestioningly subscribe to the rules, regulations, and social guidelines of the west, to better serve their western conquerors. Among social guidelines is the attachment to material possessions as a sign of wealth and status, a growing fear of death and aging, and the impatient search for concrete and certain knowledge. A South African anti-apartheid activist said, "the greatest weapon in the hands of the oppressors is the minds of the oppressed." I think that has a huge relevance to what is happening to the upper middle class citizens of India during the period of the book and even now. Looking at countries with a higher amount of personal material wealth, and believing it is that which will bring them peace and happiness. It is easy to understand, if you were a starving child on the streets of India or even a well fed on like Rahel and Estha, yet you see the glory of being a child in America, T.V. toys, Mcdonalds, the whole nine yards, it is easy to associate that with happiness. But is it? I guess to bring it home I would have to bring it around the earth to the Putney school. Though in many societies we would be considered the conquerors that Chacko speaks of, but though there is no debate for how fortunate we are to be in the position we are in, are we not also caught in the same "War of Dreams" that Chacko speaks of. We have just been so heavily indoctrinated that we cannot think of any other way to live it just seems natural, but do you really believe that peace will come in the material success that we so rigorously train ourselves for in school? Are our dreams so corroded to the physical that we can't break this cycle of working for what we can touch and take cold comfort in. Or is it still possible to dream beyond the cold comfort that makes us so powerful so determined to fill the void that we cannot identify with all sorts of silly objects from T.v. to fried chicken and Ben and Jerry's and a nice necklace and a smoking gun?

I was slightly alarmed by the thoughts that Estha had written in his work when was younger. His graphic description on page 150 of traffic safety issues does invoke a very powerful and gruesome image. "The job of a driver is very fatle His famly should be very angshious because the driver could easily be dead." I had previously assumed that Estha's innocence was the reason he reacted the way he did to what was happening to him at the movie theater. I can see from his thoughts that he wrote in grade school, however, that innocence is far from the case. I also feel, however, that Estha wrote the things he wrote for attention, and not because there was an actual part of him that had a problem coping with fatal and death-related imagery.

In this book, the things that I'm focusing are the family backgrounds and atmosphere which are not that happy. Such as some family members' death in their early age. I personally think Rahel and Estha are really poor kids. They didn't have father when they were born, their mother died when she was 31 years old, and some of the family members hate them. For example, there was a incident that Estha and Rahel visited Baby Kochamma's house. Baby Kochamma was really uncomfortable with them because she thought Rahel might steal some of her things. This distrust between family members shows the sad(or bad or something negative) atmosphere of the family.

It's really sad at the moment when Rahel and Estha finds their childhood treasure. In the note, Estha wrote about happy scene at Ammus birthday and gave her a diary as a present. Then they lay down and talked the night. It was a happy day to look back.

It seems like the family in this story is generally not that happy. I wonder if Sophie Mol is still alive in the story. I think eventhough her death was not the reason for the sad atmosphere in the family, the existence of Sophie Mol would make the family little bit happier. Because she was beloved by many of the family members because she got things that no one in her family got. Moreover, the things she got was something that the others wanted to get. I know similar but actually the opposite situation in my real life. My friend who also studies in America is the only boy child in his entire family.(All of his cousins are girls) So whenever he goes back to his home during break, the atmosphere around his family increases incredibly high only by his existence.

I find Ammu a very interesting character. Because she has gone through so much, between her parents and her abusive Ex husband. Her children defiantly feel her emotional turmoil, and deal with her baggage so to speak. Ammu loves her children but i also think she needed to deal with her parents and her husband before having children.

An assignment we did in class was about how Rahel made a list of people she loved and who is supposed to love. When we made the list mostly everyone i was supposed to love and actually love where identical. But what really made me think was how if our parents where not our parents would they still love us as they do or is it because we are there children that they love us the way we do.

As well as the reoccurring passages about the "cold moth on Rahel's heart" I have noticed that we are constantly reminded of the time being "ten to two". This is the time that is painted on a wristwatch. It is also mentioned in a way that is notably important. such as being at the end of a chapter or placed as its own sentence. How is "ten to two" important?

This family is full of weird, quirky people who always seem to be causing pain or being caused pain. I am beginning to think that this book is mostly focused on the negative things that happen in these people's lives. Do you guys think that it is the negative events that shape our lives?

during when Estha steps out to sing the sound of music, he meets the orangedrink lemondrink man. Estha never truly truly understands what happens between the two of them. and does as he is told. I don't think I have ever read something so wretched and disturbing when it is expressed so casually. Roy's discription of it is painfully accurate and beautifully disgusting. it made the story and the kind of people set in it so much more vivid.

Baby Kochamma's reaction to Rahel's return is a sour one. She doesn't understand the twin's siamese soul. To her, it is frightening so she approaches it with hostility. Baby assumes that Estha might talk to his sister and when he doesn't she takes it out on Rahel, arguing that Rahel shouldn't have assumed he would acknowledge her. Even though she didn't. It is evident her struggle to understand their relationship as well as Estha's silence. and when she is still confronted with blankness, her reaction is an extremely hostile one.

In Roy’s book, she uses beautiful sensory language. That is what stood out most for me. For, when I write poetry or pros, I try and use as much sensory language as I can. It is a beautiful way of writing and expressing thoughts in a less obvious way. For me, the combination of words in unusual order is incredibly important to writing, it adds feeling and mood.

In this particular book, she gives everything a personality. When describing the scenery and the buildings, she uses incredible language to give each object personality and emotion. I think it has an effect on the plot. Since the language draws you into each word and each scene, the plot is happening in your mind, rather than on the paper. The use of sensory language in this novel is very successful.

Comrade K. N. M. Pillai has lived beside Rahel and Estha's house for a long time. He used to be kind to Rahel and Estha. Even though, Esthat is not answering to his questions. However, Comrade K. N. M. Pillai does not care even if he cannot make any conversation. Moreover, when Rahel came back to Ayemenem after divorced, Pillai tried to make conversation with Rahel. I'm not saying he is good or not, but I'm saying why he wants to have conversation with Rahel or Estha? Both of them are not helpful for him. Phillai is kind of a communist(?), and I think he has something in his mind by keep in touch with Rahel and Estha because they are children's of fairly powerful person in that county.

In this book, Rahel and Estha setted up as a twin, who are mentally connected to each other. One knows what happened to other one. One feels what other one feels. One experiences what other one experience. These phenomena are unrealistic and hard to believe. Especially, I am surprised when they went to the hotel after the movie, Estha walked to Rahel's room and stand in front of the door without any sign, Rahel opened the door because she knew that Estha was there. This event is really fascinating to me, what will be other events because of their connection? What Rahel and Estha think about this when they are really old? I am really curious about this phenomenon.

Since Mamachi started her pickle business, Papachi sarted to hit Mamachi a lot. However, I don't think Papachi is really bad husband. Papachi was one of the high governer in India, also, he was imperial Entomologist which has high fame. When Mamachi started her pickle factory, Papachi was about 20 years older than Mamachi. I think Papachi regarded himself as old man who cannot do anything, but Mamachi is young and passionate into her business, so Papachi started to feel foolish about himself, and realease that anger by hitting Mamachi. Finally, he broke his chair that he really liked, and show his regret about hitting Mamachi.

Ammu's character is very interesting to me, at first I thought she was just a single mother struggling to raise to children under the shame of being divorced. Then as I read further, I started to think that she was just a mean person who treated her children badly because she had been treated so badly in the past by her husband. Now I'm starting to discover the relationship between Velutha and her, realizing how difficult it could be to be in love with an "untouchable". I was wondering if anyone had any further insights to her character?

As Ive been reading I have been noting down some of the hints given about Ammu's death. Towards the beginning of the book Rahel talks about how Ammu goes to the police station after Sophie mols death to tell them there had been a "mistake". And during the parade of people holding flags Rahel said she had seen Velutha in the parade. I think that her death had something to do with Velutha, I was wondering what all of you thought. Do you think its relevant?

What is the significance of the recurring words regarding "A cold moth lifted a cold leg" pg 113 and the moth on Rahel's heard lifted a downy leg. Then put it back. Its little leg was cold." pg 131?

-Seung il and Jake

Why does the family love sophie mol so much? What is so intresting about her? - Ingrid & Morgan

Why does Estha like to walk on a rainy day Why Chacko still likes England, even though his wife had abandoned him. What might Rahel thought of when Estha did not welcome her coming back. What did Rahel and Estha imagined at Sophie Mol's funeral. What do you think about this? Shin & YJ

why did the church not accept to bury Ammu? What did they have against her? I think that it might have to do with what shape she was in when she was in Ayemenem before her death. they could have buried her near the house or spred her ashes around the house or where she love to be, but it they didn't do anything with the ashes.

According to what we have found out so far, what do you think happens to Ammu? What do you think killed her? - Ingrid and Morgan

why does Rahel not love her mother when she gets back from the Nazareth Convent? -Ingrid and Morgan

After Margaret's new husband Joe dies, Chacko invites Margaret for Christmas. As the family is driving Margaret back to the airport, they encounter a group of communist protesters. They surround the car and Rahel says that she saw Velutha in the crowd. I feel as though Rahel is telling the truth even though she doesn't want it to be the truth. Rahel and Estha both love Velutha, there would be no reason for them to be ashamed of seeing hom in the protesters even if they are against communism. On the other hand when Ammu tried to slap Rahel for shouting out to Velutha, she was implying that Ammu is very ashamed that her lover would be in such a ridiculous Protest.

Roy uses the "moth" constantly within this book. For instance, "The moth on Rahel's heart spread its velvet wings, and the chill crept into her bones." (pg 108) Or another quote, "How Pappachi's Moth whispered in his children's veins!" (pg 69) These two quotes are just a couple example's out of the book. Roy Constantly uses it when something dramatic is happening to a character. Or a way of describing an event. This symbolizes to me that inside each member of that family lives a moth. Each on creeps around in their blood. It spreads throughout them like an overwhelming sense of pain. It is past on through the family generations, and I'm wondering if you are feeling that it's symbolized in the same way or a different one? Does the moth seam like a scare over the family, or more of a description?

Sophie Mol tells Estha and Rahel that "We've come here [India] to recover from the shock." (Roy 145). I think it's strange, however, for Margaret to take Sophie to the home of her ex-husband in order to recover from the recent loss of her husband. Upon arrival, Sophie is very intrigued by the scenes she sees such as the dead elephant, and the things she hears from Estha and Rahel. It was her first time in a developing country, so I'm sure she was taken aback by the culture shock, even though we don't hear about her until her unfortunate trip to the river. I think that Margaret took her daughter to India immediately after Joe died to be able to see a vast chunk of her heritage, even though Sophie and Chacko aren't especially close. Margaret Kochamme knew that after that visit, it would be the end. What she does not forsee, however, is the tragedy that ends in Sophie's death.

In response to these two questions: Where does the animosity between Baby Kochamma and the twins come from? I think that Baby Kochamma just doesn't understand Estha's and Rahel's relationship, and so she is a little bit afraid and jealous, and then she gets upset and happy when they don't speak to eachother. I do not think that Baby's feelings were the same when the twins were young, and I wonder when she changed the way she felt. Do you think Rahel really did see Velutha in the crowd, and why didn't Ammu want her to have seen him? I believe that Rahel really did see Velutha. I just have a feeling, from the way the author wrote the scene. Maybe Velutha didn't want the family to know that he was there, so he hid. Or, maybe Ammu knew something everyone else didn't and didn't want Rahel to point it out.

In response to the following discussion question: When Chacko says, "We're Prisoners of War. Our dreams have been doctored.We belong nowhere. We sail unanchored on troubled seas. We may never be allowed ashore. Our sorrows will never be sad enough. Our joys never happy enough. Our dreams never big enough. Our lives never important enough." (52) do you think he is referring to the troubles of his own life, or about the collective problems in Estha and Rahel's lives? I think that Chacko is talking about the collective problems of the world as a whole, not himself, Estha or Rahel specifically. However, I think he might relate his life to this idea, as he has had a fairly hard life (divorce, running a factory). I feel like Rahel's and Estha's lives are still young and new at this point in the book, and their lives would need to be more concrete. I do not think there is enough pattern in the twins' lives to be able to tell if Chacko is referring to them.