The God Of Small Things Discussion- The Ending

The End of Small Things
Tasha Rennie

Upon finishing Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things, I was quite struck by the way in which the novel was concluded. I was both surprised and satisfied, and I found that it was definitely an ending that invoked thought and reflection on several issues.
Firstly, the novel ends with the description of the love scene between Ammu and Velutha. This is an event which is hinted at and implied almost from the beginning. It is often stated as the cause for the tragic events that take place over the span of the ever-shifting timeline. Additionally, this scene alone has caused quite a bit of controversy due to the sexual relationship between people of different castes: a Touchable and an Untouchable. Roy, herself, was faced with obscenity charges in India due to the depiction.
Why do you think Roy chose to end the book with the scene that is both pivotal to the plot and explicitly stated from the beginning? Do you think there was any intended significance to its controversial nature?
The second to last chapter involves Estha and Rahel’s final parting at age seven and their subsequent act of incest 24 years later. This scene involves much less description or explanation; it is only stated that, “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”(310). There can be no coincidence in the proximity of the final chapters containing the two love scenes. There are many obvious connections that can be drawn between the two. Both encounters contain the breach of societal taboos by people who have been broken by the constraints of society themselves.
What other connections can be found between these two events?
Incest is a universal taboo among all societies, both past and present. However, throughout the novel it is explained that, since their separation, the twins, who thought of themselves as two halves of one whole, have both felt incomplete. The act of intimacy is implied as a sort of healing for both. What is the significance of this encounter for the development of both characters and the conclusion of the novel? Do you think it suffices?
In the final act that involves the twins we see that, “once again they broke the Love Laws. That lay down who should be loved. And how. And how much”(311). There are recurring references to the Love Laws throughout the story; they seem to play fundamental roles in the structure of this society and the story itself. They are the backbone of the history, the culture and the stratification of the society. Roy’s story really seems to explore what can happen as a result of breaking these laws. Do you think that this is one of the reasons Roy wrote this story? Or does she provide any justification for the breach in this propriety. Would it have been possible for these characters to not break these rules? What other examples are there of the Love Laws being broken?
Finally, I find that endings, in general, can make or break a novel. However, with this story I found that I was actually rather torn. Due to the unique format and style, I couldn’t decide whether the novel provided enough closure since we never really find out what happens to Rahel and Estha; or whether closure was really needed. However, endings and conclusions tend to be a matter of taste and opinion with readers. So, what did you think of the ending? Were you satisfied?

GoST: A Search for a Protagonist and a Connection to an Author

Melanie

We have talked a lot in class about the point-of-view expressed in this novel. For example, many people were saying that the playful language came from the children and we talked about this as a device Roy uses. Another interesting aspect of the book is the protagonist. Is there a protagonist? Who is the protagonist? Here is Roy’s view:

Interviewer: When I started to read “The God of Small Things,” it took me some time to figure out who the protagonist was — and then I started to feel it was the place: India, Kerala.
Roy: That quest is interesting — that quest for one main character. There is no reason for there to be one. In fact, I think the center is everyone, Ammu, Baby Kochamma, Velutha, Estha, Rahel … they all are the core.

Who/what do you feel is the protagonist in the book? Do you believe that all of these characters present a core as Roy says? Are these the only core characters? How does the missing obvious, single protagonist affect a reader’s (or your) connection to the book or its characters?

Continuing along with the discussion of characters, Roy talks about her character motivation and connections to other authors. Before you read the next passage, think about these questions: How are Roy’s characters’ thoughts and feelings driven? Do they seem natural and realistic, or somewhat unnatural? Did you find yourself confused with actions that characters took? Or did you find that their actions always made sense for their character?:
Roy: I don’t understand when readers assume that Indian writers are “magical realists” and suddenly I’m a “magical realist,” just because Salman Rushdie or other Indian writers are “magical realists.” Sometimes people can misread because of such pegging. For example, when Baby Kochamma is fantasizing or Rahel is observing something as a child or Ammu is dreaming in my book, it is not me, the writer, creating the “magical realism.” No, what I am writing is what the characters are experiencing. What the reader is reading is the character’s own perceptions. Those images are driven by the characters. It is never me invoking magic! This is realism, actually, that I am writing.
Actually, it’s not just Rushdie I’m compared to….some other writers from the American South — Mark Twain, Harper S. Lee — and I think that perhaps there’s an infusion or intrusion of landscape in their literature that might be similar to mine…. because it’s natural that writers from outside urban areas share an environment that is not man-made and is changed by winds and rivers and rain. I think that human relationships and the divisions between human beings are more brutal and straightforward than those in cities, where everything is hidden behind walls and a veneer of urban sophistication.

In this part of the interview, Roy also suggests that in non-urban areas “human relationships and the divisions between human beings are more brutal and straightforward than those in cities…” How did this quote make you feel? Do you agree with her? Did you find the relationships in her novel, which was set in a non-urban area, to be more brutal and straightforward than in your life in a city? Do you think this was due to the rural location? Do you feel that her novel was more connected to the earth and nature than novels set in the city? Would you compare her as a writer to Mark Twain and Harper S. Lee?

Interview found at: http://www.salon.com/sept97/00roy.html