Another method which Narayan incorporates to achieve gentle humour is through Nataraj’s self deception and self denial of the “position” that he is in. He complains, “Why were these people so pig-headed as not to know or want to understand [his] present position?” which in itself becomes a comic statement as the reader and Narayan himself both understand the position that he has placed himself in while Nataraj unwittingly is blinded by the reality of the situation; that he has, in fact, been manipulated and used by Vasu in order to get what he wants.
Nataraj’s ability to retain his own sense of humour despite the ordeal he is going through also creates humour within itself. When asked, “is he a relative?” Nataraj’s response – “No, thank God. It is the only thing that is good about the present situation” – is seen as funny as it contains a certain amount of truth, revealing Nataraj’s ability to have landed himself in such a situation and allowing the reader the freedom to laugh at his weakness, creating an amusing situation within a most disagreeable condition.
The adjournment lawyer’s legal jargon – “stamp charges…Affidavit charges” sound pretentious and hollow to the reader but not to Nataraj, leading to a humorous situation where the reader is laughing at Nataraj rather than with him. It is also important to remember that Nataraj himself uses his printing jargon when dealing with the adjournment lawyer (in chapter 4) on his own territory, creating a parallel situation with a reversal of power. The fact that we know that it is the “coffee charges for the bench clerk” that will achieve anything, rather than the lawyer’s own work, also creates humour and this is highlighted by the fact that that lawyer demands fees for his work. Subsequently, the lawyer looks ridiculous for not doing his job properly and this makes Nataraj look even more ridiculous for believing he lawyer’s “great words of wisdom” blindly, ultimately creating a laughable situation.
The adjournment lawyer’s philosophy on “mix[ing] up accounts” is also the source of humour in this extract. This sounds officious to Nataraj and being too lackadaisical to do anything about it, he doesn’t protest and agrees to send him some money for the “charges”. His mental justification is quite melodramatic allowing for a humorous insight on the way Nataraj’s mind works – “[he] felt humbled by circumstances; the lawyer must save [him] from prison” – and also recalls previous situations where Nataraj’s reactions have been superfluous, such as the opening of chapter 4, where he believes he has been kidnapped for “ransom”. This is echoed again towards the end of the extract – “I felt grateful to this man for saving my neck” and “I was sitting unscathed…on the day following my D-day” – creating yet again a comic situation with the help of visual images.
The closing of this passage contains sardonic humour with a hint of irony – “Great words of wisdom they seemed to me in my fevered state”. We know that they are not really “words of wisdom” but just an easy way out for justifying the fact that the lawyer charged him money unnecessarily. As his weakness and cowardice are revealed, humour arises through his justification of the lawyer’s actions.
Another sequence closely connected to Nataraj’s weakness of being unable to defend himself is the opening of chapter 4, where Vasu takes Nataraj unwillingly for a ride in his Jeep. Vasu’s aggressive nature contrasts with Nataraj’s pacifist nature creating a comical situation between Narayan’s two main characters. “You don’t like being with me!” – Vasu’s reaction is typical of him manipulating a situation to suit himself and is amusing as Nataraj’s preceding question – “what’s the meaning of this?” – contains no implication of Vasu’s accusation.
As previously mentioned, Nataraj’s almost theatrical reactions to being kidnapped – he felt he was “at his mercy” and that he should “abandon [himself] to the situation” – remind us once again of his attitude towards the lawyer’s philosophy on “mix[ing] up accounts”; it is laid-back and without much effort, not even attempting to defend his rights at all. Nataraj uses superfluous imagery to describe Vasu – “lord of the universe” – creating humour which arises from the former’s own thoughts while at the same time this image can be connected to Vasu’s God-like ability to create and destroy life, reminding us that the power is now with Vasu as they are no longer within the press but in his Jeep.
Although Vasu’s disregard for others is selfish and condemnable, the way in which he expresses it is funny – after having scared two women out of his path, his only reaction is “these women are hardy and enjoy a bit of fun” which is ridiculous as it is obvious that they are scared and not enjoying themselves. Vasu’s retort is also quite humorous as it plays on the unexpected and ultimately sounds preposterous rather than spiteful or callous. Connected to his selfishness is one of his philosophies on women, which, to a 21st Century feminist reader would be offensive in nature as it is both sexist and chauvinistic – he claims that “you don’t have to own a coffee estate because you like a cup of coffee now and then”, and consequently, humour arises out of this philosophy as a result of its absurdity.
Nataraj’s far-fetched speculation is particularly amusing – “I wondered for a moment whether [Vasu] might be drunk” – as he is trying to justify Vasu’s temperament and simultaneously tries to find out slyly if Vasu is in actual fact drunk by asking an indirect question regarding “prohibition”. Soon after, Nataraj’s overemotional statement – “my last hope that the man might be drunk was gone”, highlighting the severity of the situation from Nataraj’s point of view, which seems slightly trivial to Narayan and consequently, to the reader.
Narayan creates effective visual images in this extract which contribute to the overall comic aspect of a certain incident. “[Nataraj] called pathetically like a child at a fair tugging at the sleeve of his elder” is a simple simile which seems appropriate considering the two characters’ relationship at that moment – Vasu has the power as they are in his Jeep and are therefore on his territory. This image is incorporated again as Nataraj “cried like a lost child”, making Nataraj seem comically innocent as he is compared to a child. These two visual images create the humour and do not need dialogue to express clearly how Nataraj is feeling, allowing us the freedom to laugh at the way he views himself beside Vasu.
Narayan takes advantage of the first person narrative to achieve humour through the exploitation of Nataraj’s wild and developing imagination. Phrases such as “struck with a sudden fear” are alliterative in nature and are, as we expect, overdramatic. From “demand[ing] a ransom” to being kept prisoner in “some tiger cave”, Nataraj’s thoughts progress to become absurd – he worries that his wife “might have to sell the house and all her jewellery” and even allows Sastri to cross his mind, revealing the way in which Nataraj’s mind works and develops. By allowing us access to Nataraj’s mental vulnerability, Narayan creates humour through his narrator’s internal thoughts and imagination.
In relation to Nataraj’s imagination, it is important to note that his mental remarks are funny but Narayan makes it clear to the reader that he does not have the courage to say them out loud. By revealing these mental remarks, Narayan allows the reader to form a clearer understanding of the motives behind Nataraj’s actions and also adds greatly to the humorous aspect of the novel as a whole. Consequently, a contrast is created between what Nataraj says mentally – to Vasu (mentally), “you’ll not hesitate to make a meal of any fool who has the ill-luck to go with you” – and what he actually says out loud.
Chapter 6 reintroduces the septuagenarian to us and with this introduction Narayan takes the opportunity to comment humorously on human behaviour and human nature involving several distinct reactions by different characters to the same event – that of the shooting of the septuagenarian’s grandchild’s dog. Narayan achieves this humour mainly through his use of dialogue incorporated with Nataraj’s internal thoughts towards his position & towards the other characters involved.
Nataraj’s initial reaction to the septuagenarian’s story is: “I almost foresaw what was coming”. The fact that he immediately suspects the outcome of the story is quite humorous as it complicates his situation with Vasu even more, creating a sort of dark humour surrounding his fate. Likewise, Nataraj’s response to the septuagenarian – “why did you let it out?” – is irrelevant and beyond the point of the story, creating more humour, especially when followed by the septuagenarian’s wandering discussion on “ghosts”, and later on by his discussion about food. This is particularly humorous as we know that Nataraj wants to avoid the main subject – he was “hoping he’d forget the theme of the dead dog and concentrate on ghosts”. Here, Narayan’s comment on human behaviour typical of old age can be presented in a funny yet somewhat sad way, suggesting senility.
Coincidence and good timing are aspects which Narayan incorporates into this section to facilitate his humour and create an exceptionally awkward situation for Nataraj. First, the journalist intervenes to remind the septuagenarian what he was talking about. This is amusing and we begin to feel a kind of pity for Nataraj, despite the fact that he is mainly responsible for his own condition. Timing again contributes to the comic aspect of this extract when “just at the crucial moment Sastri came in” creating more obstacles for Nataraj and increasing the comic factor of the passage.
After Sastri’s statement “I saw your grandchild crying…” dark humour is created because although the actual facts of the shooting of the dog & the crying grandchild are not funny, the way in which the story unravels is as a result of the interaction of the different characters involved. Sastri plays a large role regarding humour throughout the rest of this extract and the visual/aural image of Sastri “as if he had been poked with the butt of a rifle” is comic in nature while Narayan’s choice of language within Nataraj’s mental sarcastic comment – “Sastri insisted on enlightening him” – adds to the entertaining aspect of this extract, as does his later comment – “Knowing Vasu’s style of speech with children, I could agree with the old man’s point of view [regarding the danger posed by Vasu towards the children]”.
These three extracts all incorporate different combined techniques to achieve a gentle and sometimes mocking sense of humour which is unique to Narayan. Ultimately, the comic aspects add to the realism of the novel as a whole, making it more credible as a story and more enjoyable to read on the whole.
