The most prominent theme in The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri is that culture is difficult to maintain when fully immersed into an entirely different one. This was demonstrated through the struggles of the family as a Bengali family from India being quickly thrown into suburban American life, and more specifically, Gogol’s identity conflicts.
There were many minor instances of culture conflict as well as ones that were fundamental to the story. As mentioned in my second post, the snack that Ashima made is a perfect example of a minor situation of maintaining her Indian culture in Cambridge, MA. “She adds salt, lemon juice, thin slices of green chili pepper, wishing there were mustard seed oil to pour into the mix. Ashima has been consuming this concoction throughout her pregnancy, a humble approximation of the snack old for pennies on Calcutta sidewalks and on railway platforms throughout India,” (1). The “wishing” that there were certain ingredients indicates that Ashima is fondly and solemnly thinking of India, missing out on items easily and commonly accessible there. The difference between American and Indian cuisine is amplified in this simple described event.
An example of a culture conflict that ended up being fundamental to the story was the naming of Gogol. This isn’t the reasoning behind the actual name that Ashoke gives to him, but the reason why he had to be named in such a manner in the first place. As a family and Indian tradition, Ashima’s great grandmother was to name him. But her mind slipped away, and the letter never came, so Ashima and Ashoke were left without traditional direction on how to name Gogol. The American conflict here was that the hospital demanded that the baby have a name for the birth certificate entry. The sacred tradition of the way that Ashima and Ashoke would have named Gogol had they been in India was lost to the legal requests of the hospital in America. On top of the haste implemented in response to the demand, Gogol was officially named by a “pet” name. In the described Indian culture, every newborn was given a “good” name which was the formal way to address the child, and a “pet” name which is what loved ones used. As an outcome of the rush to name Gogol out of cultural tradition, he was left without a good name, and this haunted him just as much as any other aspect of his name.
In addition to the instances where Indian culture was slighted by the American environment, the theme was demonstrated through the seamless Americanization of Sonia and Gogol. An example is when they were in Calcutta where they “privately admit to excruciating cravings for hamburgers or a slice of pepperoni pizza,” (84). These clear American staples are just food on the surface of the situation, but uncover something a bit deeper. The children are in India after being accustomed to American living, and they’re secretly revealing that they crave American comforts. This also comes up when they return home to America: “Gogol and Sonia sleep for as long as they want, watch television...once again they are free to quarrel, to tease each other…” (87). The family dynamic adopted here is because of being in America for so long. The social freedom that the children experience in America was restricted in India, so that aspect of cultural family relationships was slowly lost.
I came to understand the theme because of a mixture of prior knowledge and the various instances I gathered directly from the text as I read. The prior knowledge was the familiarity with the classic immigrant story, which was actually expanded upon by Foster. The immigrant story deals with the journey of that move, in this case, the settling of the Gangulis into Cambridge in the first few years. More specifically and commonly repeated, the hardships of the immigration are central to the plot. Through the experiences that Gogol had in his adult life, this pattern of “immigrant hardship” played out through his personal identity issues. Then through examples like the ones described above, my preconceived notion of the theme of the story was repeatedly confirmed.
The biggest things I paid attention to while reading the novel were the wise words of Nabokov and Perrine. I read Nabokov last year and have still continued to struggle with his concept of detached imagination. Up until my AP English education, I honestly believed that certain characters were intended to be identified with, but and slowly coming to terms with how certain aspect of the character should be related to instead of identified with. Luckily for me, The main character, Gogol, was a male immigrant, so I didn’t find myself actually identifying with him. I did, however, relate to him with things like having a name that, as in my third post, is “never an option on key chains or metal pins or refrigerator magnets.” I made sure to try to keep my personal interest out of the plot because of all of the Indian elements that I’m familiar with and so greatly adore. The other thing I paid attention to was symbolism. I’m now so careful with symbolism that I’m almost afraid to declare something a symbol. I traced books, food, and Gogol’s name throughout my reading, but I was careful not to say that they were actual symbols. For each one, I found a counter argument for why that symbol didn’t in fact represent what I would have wanted it to.
I would recommend this book because it’s a well- written, well-orchestrated novel with a “good” story. In all of the symbolism, parallelism, and intertextuality that leads to great analysis exercises, having an interesting plot is just a bonus. I found that in this book, I enjoyed reading it even though it was technically for school. It gives the readers a chance to learn about a culture not commonly approached in all of the “classic” literature. The characters were well developed and dynamic, which is something I always appreciate. I really got to know Gogol because in this book, unlike any other I’ve read (that I can recall) the story follows him from being a fetus to a married and educated adult. Definitely read it if you get the chance.
First Post: Overall, I thought you did a good job of explaining the deeper significance that books held for Ashoke. Clearly, books were a powerful force for him since they resulted in both the furthering of his education and his salvation from a tragedy. However, is it safe to say that Lahiri wants the audience to understand the contrast between Ashoke and his siblings by conjuring a personal image? One of the things we have focused on this quarter is that good readers stay aloof from the text; analyzing it at a distance and not becoming personally attached or sentimental. Some people may not have had the childhood experience of playing outside or having one on one time with a family member.
ReplyDeleteSecond Post: Ashima’s wanting of food from India in order to achieve emotional stability indicates that she feels alienated in her new world. This is similar to how Gregor feels in The Metamorphosis. Gregor also turns to food to combat his apprehensions regarding his new life. However, he finds that he no longer enjoys the foods he formerly craved, which is similar to the irony of food being the opposite of comfort for Ashima.
Third Post: It’s interesting how as Gogol grows, he comes to detest his name more and more. Maybe this is a parallel for moving from the innocence and carefreeness of youth to the harsh, difficult world of adulthood.
Fourth Post: The journey that your characters underwent in your novel is actually not so different from the one that Jim and Huck go on in my book, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. While Jim and Huck remain in America, they come to experience new cultures and ways of life as they float down the river. It seems that alienation from ones origins is a pretty prevalent aspect of human existence.
I loved the beginning of your first post, when you take that one simple line about Ashoke and his grandfather and draw from it a very strong characteristic of the boy. It had no mention of emotion whatsoever, yet the way you described the contrast seemed to have a lot to do with the mentality of that character—his connection to his grandfather and to his books as well. As for the second post, the first thing I thought was how awesome that food would taste right now…haha great picture choice. The reference to Foster worked perfectly here, because you were actually intertwining two of his teachings about literature. You noted his description of food as a satisfier, and you sought out the irony that that quality of satisfaction creates in the story. As Foster says, “Irony trumps everything,” so that was a very good find.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with the way you traced Gogol’s name throughout the entire story, it provided a lot of insight for me into Gogol’s character. Personally, I can also relate to his situation a bit. Fortunately, I never reached the point of hatred when it came to my name as he did, but when I was a child as well, I absolutely despised my name. It was because the kids all made fun of it and no one could ever pronounce it right. It’s not a name of the English language, which was Gogol’s problem as well. What was the name he wanted to switch to?
The fact that this story helped you understand what Nabokov said about avoiding identification with your character is perfect, and that alone makes me want to read the story (Because I basically scoffed at almost everything Nabokov said when I read that piece last year). It seems to be a very developed, carefully written story. I could tell it had a lot of layers to it from the first post about the role of books in Ashoke’s life. This one is definitely going on my (very long) list of books to read before college.
The Namesake sounds like such an interesting novel. Cultural differences and intercultural changes are so fascinating to me. I am definitely adding this to my list of really cool books to read. I completely agree with what you said about Nabokov and the advice he gives to his readers. Last year, when I read the Nabokov essay, I was totally confused by the whole "never ever identify with a character in a story" concept. That means that I have read almost every book wrong. I used to read novels and think "oh wow, that character is just like me. She is totally me". By identifying with these characters, I felt inspiration, companionship, and awe. I have come to realize, though, that Nabokov was probably right on this one. By identifying with the characters, you change them. They are no longer Gogol, but a shadow of yourself. The author did not write these characters to be just like you; they are original and are meant to be interpreted as themselves and no one else. When I identified with the characters I was reading about, I projected my own personality into these characters, thus changing the entire story. I completely agree with you that characters are meant to be related to, not identified with. Relating to a character makes them believable and realistic, qualities complex and interesting characters often have. I'm on the same page as you with the name that is never on a key chain, and it is very easy for me to relate to Gogol in the name and culture differences. Keeping my similarities and selves separate, though, is essential.
ReplyDelete