Javohn Cleveland (He/Him)


Uncategorized

Blog Post #4: Contrasting Relationships

Posted by Javohn Cleveland (He/Him) on

Throughout the novel, there is a common theme of intelligence and communication. Ghosh’s most notable contrast is between the two characters Kanai and Fokir. Kanai is characterized to be intelligent, being multilingual and excelling in areas of travel and understanding of Indian cultures and geography. However, Kanai lacks respect for women and is shown to constantly objectify them. Fokir on the other hand is a contrast to Kanai’s character. He is often ridiculed for his inability to read and write, labelling him as “unintelligent” to the people around him, more specifically his wife Moyna and Kanai. Despite his lacks we see that through Piya’s internal dialogue and interactions with him that he’s more worthy of her respect; Ghosh’s use of Piya and Moyna throughout the novel serves the purpose of contrasting Kanai and Fokir’s characters.

First, it is important to highlight how Kanai interacts with Piya and Moyna. For Piya he is often flirtatious and occassionally makes her uncomfortable. In the Chapter, “A Sunset” He states how Piya would be, “…much more to my taste.” (Ghosh, Pg.220) When the topic of marriage came up when Piya suspected he might have some romantic feelings towards Moyna. It’s worth noting that Kanai does infact answer Piya’s question about Moyna but only stating that she’d be good for “a fling.” Highlighting the aspect of respect that Kanai lacks where he objectifies Moyna but reassures Piya that she’s the one he’s after to her face. Piya’s reaction to this is a “wary smile” showcasing some form of uncomfortableness from that comment and was momentarily pleased that Kanai interrupted their conversation as an excuse to drop the subject. On the other hand, there’s Kanai and Moyna. Kanai has stated that even though he can only view Moyna as something “short-term” if it ever turned romantical, he does praise Moyna stating, “I admire her.” (Ghosh, Pg. 220) Even complimenting her by calling her a “…bright girl” (Ghosh, Pg. 156) In the “Disturbance” Chapter. When the two are together, specifically in the presence of Fokir, Kanai and Moyna both take liberty in making fun of him. In the Chapter, “Negotiations” when Piya explains why Fokir’s knowledge would be useful for her trip. Moyna makes a smart remark, “She made a funny little play on the word gyan, which means knowledge and gaan, which means song. She said that her life would be a lot easier if her husband had a little more gyan and a little less gaan.” (Ghosh, Pg. 212) This emphasizes not only the admiration Kanai has for her, but that they share the value of intelligence and their belittlement of Fokir highlights a respect that Moyna has for Kanai that she doesn’t have for Fokir.

Piggybacking off of that, Fokir and Moyna have an odd marriage. Moyna doesn’t respect Fokir because of his lack of education. Fokir is often viewed as “invisible” even to Moyna. An example of this would be when Piya brought money as a form of thanks to Fokir. “Piya rose from her chair, but was quickly pre-empted by Moyna, who stopped before her with an extended palm. Thus forestalled, there was nothing Piya could do: she handed the money to Moyna…” (Ghosh, Pg. 208) This action emphasizes that Moyna doesn’t trust Fokir enough to make financial decisions, even though he is the reason that they’re getting the money in the first place; Moyna’s lack of faith in Fokir showcases a polar opposite relationship between Moyna and Fokir, and Moyna and Kanai. Fokir’s relationship with Piya is ironically healthier than Fokir’s marriage. Piya admires Fokir’s knowledge of the sea in a similar vain to how Kanai values Moyna’s intelligence. “…her husband knows the river well. His knowledge can be of help to a scientist like myself.” (Ghosh, Pg. 212) In another interaction we see that there’s some kind of intimiate feeling that Piya has towards Fokir, when Piya first meets Moyna she internalizes that she, “…felt a twinge of envy at the thought of her going back to Fokir and Tutul, while she returned tto the absence of upstairs.” (Ghosh, Pg. 196) These pieces of evidence emphasize that there’s a level of respect and admiration that Piya has towards Fokir that Moyna lacks, despite his illiteracy Piya still treats him as an equal and cares about him enough to gather some form of a one-sided albeit intimiate connection with him through feelings of envy about his wife and how she can spend more time with him.

These differences in the relationships between these four characters then sets up the relationship between Fokir and Kanai. As mentioned prior, Kanai does take fun in belittling and making fun of Fokir. For majority of the novel, that is the gist of their entire relationship; but later on, we see this envious side of Kanai when Fokir is mentioned or praised. In the Chapter titled, “Words” Kanai tries comparing himself to Fokir in a desparate attempt of validation, “If she (Piya) had to choose between me and Fokir, whom do you think it will be? Moyna’s reply was non-committal…Her hesitation provoked Kanai…But you’re such a bright and capable girl, Moyna…Why don’t you forget about Fokir? Can’t you see as long as you’re with him you’ll never be able to achieve anything?” (Ghosh, Pg. 258) This piece of evidence emphasizes that despite his belittlement, Kanai feels threatened by Fokir; even though he lacks communication skills. Fokir has something that Kanai doesn’t have and as a result Kanai feels the need to get “competitive.” As a contrast, Fokir doesn’t pay any attention to Kanai’s belittling. In “Negotiations”, Kanai tries conversing with Fokir, “…in a loud, hearty voice, attempting friendliness, Ha-re Fokir do you know me? I’m Mashima’s nephew, Kanai Dutt. Fokir, made no answer…Fokir, it, seemed, had no interest in pursuing the conversation.” (Ghosh, Pg. 209) This piece of evidence emphasizes that the negativity in their relationship is one-sided through Kanai, his choice to speak to Fokir as if he was a child and Fokir choosing to disengage with the conversation highlights that Kanai treats Fokir horribly with no justification which pushes more into how disrespectful he can be to people. Which shows one of the many reasons as to why Fokir manages to be a better romantic interest to Piya than Kanai.

In Conclusion, the contrast of how Piya and Moyna treat Fokir and Kanai help build Fokir and Kanai’s character’s as polar opposites.

Uncategorized

Fear Inducing Expectations

Posted by Javohn Cleveland (He/Him) on

The novel, “Parable of the Sower” by Octavia Butler focuses on the life of a fictional character named Lauren Olamina. Who lives in a gated community in a big family; One of her main family members that the audience is introduced to in the very beginning is her father who’s a preacher. Throughout the first couple chapters of the novel, Butler pushes the clashing perspectives between Lauren and her father, and we see how Lauren internalizes these differences. Through this, Butler forms the argument that expectations from parent to offspring leaves internalizing fear on the child.

Instantly, we’re greeted to Lauren’s emotional state when it comes to her father through a reoccurring dream. Lauren mentions how this dream only occurs during times of struggle, stating that it occurs when she tries to, “…pretend that nothing unusual is happening. It comes to me when I try to be my father’s daughter…Tomorrow, I’ll try to please him…” (Butler, Pg. 3) This piece of evidence emphasizes the pressure that she feels from her father. Specifically saying that she must “try” to be her “father’s daughter” indicates the father has personal expectations for his daughter to meet that the daughter doesn’t agree with; and despite her not agreeing, she still must conform and “try” by masking herself in the hopes that she’s a good daughter to him. An example of this can be found when we look into Lauren’s religious beliefs. In Chapter 2, Lauren highlights her idea of God and religion, and we see that Lauren isn’t comfortable with the idea of following her father’s religious expectations. “…three years ago, my father’s God stopped being my God. His church stopped being my church. And yet, today, because I am a coward, I let myself be initiated into that church. I let my father baptize me in all three names of that God that isn’t mine anymore.” (Butler, Pg. 7) Butler’s use of the word “coward” highlights that Lauren has never expressed to her father that her religious beliefs are different from his; her self-loathing indicates suppressed guilt she has on herself and when compared to the very beginning of Chapter 1, we see that there’s a contradiction between how she feels. She stresses herself over not meeting the expectations that her father wants her to have. However, here, she feels guilty about not expressing herself and separating from these expectations.

We also see it through her relationship with God. It’s already been noted that the way Lauren views God is different from her father, meaning that her idea of God wouldn’t match the standard Baptist or Christian beliefs that her father abides by. Instead, she has a more neutral stance, “I feel no love for or loyalty to my God. My God just is.” (Butler, Pg. 26) Instead, she views God as a mold, where he is, “shaping us and being shaped by us in no particular way…” (Butler, Pg. 26) Her idea of God is bothersome even to her, stating that her idea and how she analyzes God, “won’t let me alone, won’t let me forget it…I’m stuck with it.” (Butler, Pg. 26) These pieces of evidence emphasize that she even struggles to meet expectations spiritually, she feels “different” it’s something that won’t “leave her” and something that she is “stuck with” inferring that this again is an internal conflict that she is having between herself and her father as even she’s stated that, “In spite of what my father will say or do to me…I’ll have to do something about it.” (Butler, Pg. 26) meaning she wants to abide by her beliefs and express them clearly one day, even if it’s against her own father’s ideas even admitting, “That reality scares me to death.” (Butler, Pg. 26)

In Conclusion, Parent-Child relationships built on expectations create a fearful mental environment for the child to internalize in.

Uncategorized

Societal Sabotage through Ignorance and Neglect

Posted by Javohn Cleveland (He/Him) on

Slow violence by Nixon’s definition is, “…a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all.” (Nixon, Pg. 4) Nixon in the article then forms multiple analyses on why we as humans are conditioned to ignore calamities that are slow and long lasting. One that stuck out was his idea that, “Casualties from slow violence are, moreover, out of sync…” (Nixon, Pg. 10) After this he then names how slow violence doesn’t sync with our narrative and media expectations; Although, he uses this claim to transition into the relationship between politicians and environmental issues; the idea of environmental issues not syncing with our narrative and expectations are too common and as a society we “sabotage” ourselves by neglecting the true effect climate change has on landscapes. Examples of this can be seen in the article titled, “The Great Derangement” by Amitav Ghosh. On Page 25 Ghosh turns to Adam Sobel, a meteorologist that did research on Hurricane Sandy. In one of Sobel’s studies, he mentions that there were little to no instinct on New York to create safer conditions for their residents during the time; this was because of a general belief that, “losing one’s life to a hurricane is…something that happens in ‘faraway places’…when Hurricane Katrina struck the coast in 2004, many people did not take shelter because ‘they refused to believe hurricanes were possible in Brazil.” (Ghosh, Sobel, Pg. 25) This type of ignorance towards climatic threats highlights how environmental issues don’t align with our narrative or media expectations, exposure to natural disasters in Western media cover the climate casualties in other countries that are far from the West; leading people to believe that disasters like these are not as big of a deal or they’re above being experiencing these disasters. Ghosh doubles down more on Nixon’s argument in the latter part of his article, on Page 54 he recalls an experience of suggesting moving to his mother for the sake of her safety because she lived in an area that was at high risk of floods, Ghosh’s mother’s response to the suggestion was confusion and Ghosh made little progress on convincing his mom. This experience led him to realize, “…contrary to what I might like to think, my life is not guided by reason; it is ruled, rather, by the inertia of habitual motion. This is indeed the condition of the vast majority of human beings.” (Ghosh, Page 54) Meaning, humans naturally adapt to setting, once adapted there is a strong connection between the human and their habitat whether it be mental or emotional that challenges the idea of leaving even if it’s for the human’s benefit. That is simply just part of human nature and how we work, which is why when an area is faced with environmental violence most humans would rather remain in their homes than evacuate to safer locations. We see this play out on Page 58 where he references Henry Piddington who dabbled in a passion of: literature, philology, and sciences. Piddington predicted a cyclonic event would devastate along the coast of Bengal;”…he issued this ominous warning: everyone and everything must be prepared to see a day when, in the midst of the horrors of a hurricane, they will find a terrific mass of saltwater rolling in or rising up upon them… Piddington’s warning fell on deaf ears…A mere three years after its (Port Canning, the city where Piddington warned its residents) inauguration, it was struck by a cyclone, just as Piddington had predicted…it caused terrible destruction. The city was abandoned four years later.” (Ghosh, Piddington, Pgs. 58 and 59) This event solidifying Ghosh’s claim of humans naturally neglecting environmental issues for the sake of their own hospitality; Ghosh’s utilization of people’s lack of knowledge on the severity of natural disasters and the, “that will never happen to us” ignorant mentality is what Nixon was warning us about when he stated that slow violence doesn’t sync with our narrative and media expectations. Although, a limited argument considering today there’s more research in the effects of climate change and there are more documented incidents of “environmental violence” occurring. Nixon was right in his claim of how as a society we turn a cold shoulder to environmental issues and societies/communities will still suffer at the hands of climate change slowly but surely if there isn’t a change on how we as humans approach the issue.

Skip to toolbar