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