Commentary on an extract from The God of Small Things
Commentary on an extract from The God of Small Things
Told essentially from the children’s perspective, The God of Small Things travels back and forth between present-day India to the early days of two previous generations, and everything in between. Set in the small town of Ayemenem, this novel tells the story of a very ruptured family and unfolds the dark secrets of each character’s misfortunes in life. The ultimate tragedy revolves around the visit of Sophie-Mol and of her critical drowning. It is within the context of these events that Estha and Rahel are punished for sins they did not commit, and as children, could not have understood, as they are caught in the entanglements of the corruption of society and grow up in a world they had no control over. The consequences of the intertwined events of Sophie-Mol’s drowning and of Ammu’s illicit love-affair with an Untouchable forever alters the lives of all the family members, isolating each one and leaving them a barren shell of their former selves.
The extract that this commentary will focus on is from page 253-254, chapter 13 – ‘The Pessimist and the Optimist,’ and is a component of the climax of the story. As one of the most volatile scenes, the majority of the novel’s themes have managed to be captured in just the space of 50 lines.
As the extract opens up, Ammu screams, “Because of you! If it wasn’t for you I wouldn’t be here! None of this would have happened! I wouldn’t be here! I would have been free! I should have dumped you in an orphanage the day you were born! You’re the millstones round my neck!” Here we are already presented with the themes of the twins being one, as Ammu accuses them as though they were one person, one double burden instead of two separate ones. We see the aching motif of not being wanted, not being loved enough. However, we also immediately see the distances and misunderstandings between the characters, particularly when following Ammu’s outburst the narrator says, “She couldn’t see them crouched against the door. A surprised Puff and a Fountain in a Love-in-Tokyo. Bewildered Twin Ambassadors of God-knows-what.” We are here presented with the slaughter of childhood innocence, as the hearts of two seven-year-old twins are crushed, and they fully believe what their mother has just said to them. Furthermore, the themes of displacement are made painfully evitable when the narrator describes them as, “Bewildered Twin Ambassadors of God-knows-what. Their Excellencies Ambassadors E. Pelvis and S. Insect.” For previously, in the airport scene Baby Kochamma had told the twins, “You are Ambassadors of India. You’re going to form their First Impression of your country.” Hence throughout the rest of the text, there is the make-believe game of the twins being something important – ambassadors - and it pleases them greatly. However, reality hits them as “Ambassadors of God-knows-what” implies that they are ambassadors of nothing, their “Excellencies” stood for nothing, and that if they had represented Margaret Kochamma’s impression of the country, it turned out to be a very dire one for the matter. We also see the distances between Vellya Paapen and Kochu Maria, how Kochu Maria particularly emphasizes the distinction between herself and the former, by ignoring him and “Tried to shoo him away,” as if he were a dog. The recurring image of the Paravans being so low on the social scale that they were treated almost like animals, such as when Mammachi later says to Velutha, “If I find you on my property tomorrow I’ll have you castrated like the Pariah dog you are!” This displays most prominently the theme of segregation between Untouchables and Touchables within the Indian society, and even touches the theme of Love. Previously in the novel, we are told how, “It was Velutha who maintained the new canning machine…It was Velutha who oiled the water pump…It was Velutha who built the …furnaces.” Yet Despite all the contributions Velutha had made to the Kochamma family, and was beginning to receive better treatments than the traditional Paravans, violating the absolute social laws of “who should be loved, and how, and how much” was the absolute crime which indirectly condemned him to his death. Further more, the image of a dog implies that the attitude of the society was that it was animal-like savagery which made them commit that crime, not love. The thought of a Touchable women ever loving or finding happiness in an Untouchable man was simply so abstract that it never occurred to them.