Blog Post #5: The Namesake Compare and Contrast Essay

The Namesake Compare and Contrast Essay

In the novel and the film adaptation of The Namesake, by Jhumpa Lahiri, both Lahiri and Mira Nair connote cultural dissonance between the the parent-culture and the youth-culture of children of immigrants. Ashima and Ashoke Ganguli, two Indian immigrants, give birth to their son Gogol in the United States, who consequently feels the burden of having to uphold both the expectations of American culture and of Bengali culture. Especially in his rebellious teenage years, Gogol grows to resent the values his parents’ culture expects him to uphold, specifically regarding respect towards elders and towards tradition. Gogol struggle to find a balance in his dual-heritage, but, as Lahiri suggests, he doesn’t fully understand identity until he undergoes personal growth in his acceptance of the inevitable coexistence of his American and his Bengali Heritage. Both versions of the Gangulis’ story outline Gogol’s  retaliation against the Bengali part of his identity and recreate the persistent tension Gogol feels between attitudes towards elders in American life and in Bengali culture.

    It is clear that Bengali culture is deeply rooted in tradition. Far more-so than the American culture that Gogol grew accustomed to in school, Bengalis are expected to carry out and uphold the values of those who came before them; this expectation instills a sense of respect for elders in their cultural community, especially for family members. This respect is evident in many part of Bengali culture, but most relevantly, in family naming rights; after giving birth to Gogol, Ashima and Ashoke do not have a name picked out for him, that decision is saved for Ashima’s grandmother, their son’s great grandmother. By giving the power in naming their child to an elder in their family, the Gangulis would be immediately linking their child to the traditions of the Bengalis who are most experienced in life, honoring the respect they feel for these family members. When the letter from Calcutta does not arrive because of Ashima’s grandmother’s decaying health, it is clear that Ashoke is pained to pick a name for their child - to dishonor the values that they have held so closely their whole lives. Ashoke and Ashima clearly find it difficult to be so separated from the source of their culture, which influences them to hold onto the values that are within their control much tighter.

    This compensation is clear on Gogol’s fourteenth birthday in Lahiri’s novel. On this day of celebration, “close to forty guests come from three different states,” to gather at his parents modestly-sized Pemberton Road house; none of these guests, however, are his friends from school (72). In comparing this celebration, the Bengali one, to the “tame” affair with his friends the day before, Lahiri parallels the two events. While the ‘American’ birthday party is paired with “pizzas that [Ashoke] picked up on his way home from work,” she details the food Ashima prepared days in advance for the Bengali celebration using three lines describing Gogol’s ‘favorite’ traditional dishes (72). Lahiri’s listing of the Bengali food prepared for the party is marked with a disinterested tone. The use of a list to describe the foods that, once again, Ashima is preparing “as usual,” parallels the disdain Gogol feels for the Bengali celebration (72). As a fourteen year-old boy, Gogol isn’t interested in reminiscing about Calcutta and life before America, a life he hasn’t been exposed to, let alone anything his parents want of him. In keeping with the typical American-teenage attitude, Gogol is resistant to participate in what he feels is yet another excuse for his parents to bring Bengali culture back into their home and entertain “their crowd,” not his crowd (73). Lahiri’s use of synecdoche here marks the generalizations Gogol makes about Bengali culture; all he had ever known of Bengalis was his parents “crowd,” so he associates all of their actions with other Indian-immigrant parents in the United States. The uniformity of their parties, their beliefs, and their actions bored Gogol, further settling in his resentment of Bengali culture.

    The direction of the film further explores the children’s resistance to the importance of respect toward elders in Bengali culture. Nair films the scene in the Gangulis’ warmly-lit, small living room; positioning only one or two characters within the narrow frame at a time, she creates an intimate feeling, as if each audience is another guest at Ashoke’s and Ashima’s home. While in American culture parties are valued for their activities - watching baseball games, playing pool in the den - Nair’s direction of this Bengali gathering makes it clear that the people in the room are what matter, the true value lying in spending time with one another. In the scene, however,  Gogol’s, Sonia’s, and Moushumi’s body language interrupts the intimacy Nair creates in her bosom positioning of characters within the frame. Dressed in a dark-purple American dress, Sonia walks into the frame as the scene opens and looks up at Gogol as he walks in with a roll of her eyes. As Gogol walks in with a messily-fitted blue button down and long, shaggy hair, it is clear that neither of the Ganguli children have any interest in reciprocating that excitement their older ‘family members’ have in spending time with other Bengalis. After asking where he was going to study at university, Gogol’s Mashi suggests, “have as much fun as you want, but remember…” Without a moment of hesitation, as if he had heard this same piece of advice hundreds of times before Gogol, with a smile and a roll of his eyes, speaks over her, “marry a Bengali.” Gogol’s parents and his parents’ friends expect their children to marry other Bengali children and carry on the values and traditions of their culture; their children, however, have different plans. Kal Penn, the actor who portrayed Gogol, repeats this command alongside his Mashi in a mocking way. As an American teenager, marriage isn’t really a concern for Gogol, but it is very important in their culture that Bengali children be able to carry on the traditions that were established hundreds of years before them. Although he may not be immediately concerned with the notion of marriage, his patronization of his elders’ beliefs shows a deep disrespect that is not characteristic of a Bengali - something that would be more expected of a typical American teenager.

    The Namesake is an examination of the nuances of life between two distinct cultures and how identity can be found by accepting and understanding both cultures. This bildungsroman follows Gogol Ganguli as he works his way towards becoming a “master of both worlds,” a master of American and Bengali culture. The central opposition to this path of mastery, or self-acceptance, is the contrasting values between the two cultures, specifically the attitude towards elders. Although Lahiri relies on listing and synecdoche to reinforce the dissonance in this value and Nair utilizes the positioning of objects within the frame and body language, both creative works depict Gogol in a state before accepting and understanding both of his cultures, a state before he truly understood who he was.

Works Cited

Lahiri, Jhumpa. The Namesake. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. 72-73. Print.

The Namesake. Dir. Mira Nair. Prod. Mira Nair and Lydia Dean Pilcher. By Sooni Taraporevala.

Perf. Kal Penn, Tabu, and Irrfan Khan. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2007.

Blog Post #4: Open Essay and Reflection

The presence of cruelty doesn't always involve an aggressor and a victim; an inevitable part of the human experience, cruelty is a scar left on many characters in literature. In Ali Smith's How to be Both, Francesca, an Italian-Renaissance painter, finds her true sexual and emotional identity as a victim of personal conflict.

As a young girl, Francesca demonstrated a passion for the arts, specifically painting. Although her family had no money to support her passions, Francesca's mother supported her with all her heart. After her mother's death, Francesca grew to be comforted by femininity, a gentle reminder of her mother's presence. These two parts of Francesca's life, however, could not coexist. Italy in the 16th century was not an easy place for women to find work as a painter, in fact, it was unheard of. This meant that Francesca had to pick between the two most meaningful aspects of her identity. In tearing apart two such valuable parts of herself, it would have been impossible for Francesca to reinvent herself without compromising her integrity. This reformation from Francesca into Francesco, her 'male' ipseity, left seeds of regret and self-loathing that would fester in Francesco's mind for the next thirty years.

Francesco did all he could to keep his physical identity a secret. Not only was his reputation as a fresco-painter on the line, but he had committed herself to a completely new life - to be exposed as a woman would be to admit that the past ten years of his life were a complete and utter lie. Francesco frequents a nearby brothel to use prostitutes as live models for his artwork, but it isn't long before the nature of his visits changes; within months, several of the prostitutes have learned of his "missing manhood," and have grown to seek out the gentler touch of a woman. With the scar still tender after stitching her identity back together, this sexual revelation only drove Francesco into a state of greater self-loathing. Was he supposed to love women? Was she supposed to love men? Was she capable of loving either? Torn by these questions daily, Francesco repressed this part of his life, only making the cruel torment in her head grow stronger and louder.

After establishing a career as a painter and finding moderate success, Francesco still struggled to find sexual and emotional harmony within herself. He painted himself into a mural of St. Vincent Ferrer, and upon revisiting the image, he sees a boy looking up at the eyes of his self-portrait. These eyes force Francesco to look back on his life, to look back on the young girl he once was who yearned to dance around in dresses. All the hatred he she had for himself, the years of self-oppression, had finally been resolved. The honesty Francesco found within the eyes of his own painting drove him to question the true value of gender. Her years of rumination and emotional cruelty towards himself had finally come to reason. Although she never answered the very questions that pained her for a majority of life, she found an answer to a question she never thought to ask himself: how to be both. 

In How to be Both, Francesca uses cruelty as a means of reflection, a way to finally end the bickering between the two versions of herself living within him.
_______________________________________________
The presence of cruelty dresses in many robes. As an inevitable part of the human experience, cruelty is often a scar left on many characters in literature. I Ali Smith's How to be Both, Francesca, an Italian-Renaissance painter, finds her true sexual and emotional identity as a victim of social conflict.

As a young girl, Francesca demonstrated a passion for the arts, specifically painting. Although her family had no money to support her passions, Francesca's mother supported her with all her heart. After her mother died, Francesca's farther made the hardest decision of his life: transforming Francesca into Francesco. Italy in the 16th century was not an easy place for women to find work as a painter, in fact, it was unheard of. After years of cutting her hair short and wearing trousers and loose linens, Francesco passed as any normal, young, girlish boy. As a child, this reinvention had little effect on her, but as Francesco hit his late teens, the demands of his lifestyle grew unbearable.

"Freak," "prim," "homosexual." Francesco met many challenges trying to make friends, but a culture so set in gender roles was not accepting of androgynous he. The stones thrown by silly boys and names yelled by conservative community-members did not bother Francesco, rather, it was his sexual revelations that drove him to the edge of her sanity. This instance of cruelty was not one of society or of his father, it was cruelty within' her own mind, her own heart. Was he supposed to love women? Was she supposed to love men? Was she capable of loving either? Torn by these questions daily, Francesco repressed this part of his life, only making the cruel torment in his head grow stronger and louder.

Francesco worked for the wealthy, spending hours one end painting, re-painting, then re-painting again, murals and frescoes all across southern Italy. This time spent alone painting allowed Francesco to further torment himself, endlessly questioning who he was. After painting for hours on end without questioning what his brush was detailing, Francesco had painted himself into the mural. Standing up and looking at the two bright eyes before him, she knew. She knew who she was. In the eyes, she saw Francesco and Francesca. She saw her true identity - an end to the cruelty she was forcing upon himself.  

In How to be Both, Francesca uses cruelty as a means of reflection, a way to finally end the bickering between the two versions of herself living within him.
______________________________________________
Open Passage Reflection:

In this essay, I responded to the 2015 AP Literature and Composition Open Essay Prompt. This prompt was different than the Poetry Prompt and Prose Prompt in that it did not provide a passage or specific text to use in the essay, it was just as it is named: open. This meant that we could chose any of the novels listed below the prompt or any work of equal literary merit. I chose to write about How to be Both by Ali Smith, one of the books I read for AP Literature over the summer. I initially wanted to analyze cruelty in The Crucible, which would have worked out much better for me than Smith's novel. In my essay I analyzed the cruelty Francesca put upon herself and its significance in her path to self-discovery. Although this is a theme in the book and Francesca does force cruel judgment upon herself, the nature of cruelty in this work is not necessarily in keeping with the prompt. The 2015 AP Prompt asks about the significance of cruelty in the book as a whole, and Smith's novel is divided into two parts, each with two very different stories. In both works, cruelty is not a prevalent theme and connects very little between the two halves. In the moment, I thought that I would be able to make the book fit the prompt, but that completely disregards the value of the prompt - the goal here should be to find a novel that fits the prompt and can be used more effectively to craft an argument that is specific and relevant to the question. My essay contained a lot of summary as a result of my poor book-choice, which immediately drew it down to a five. I struggled to find relevant and concrete examples to draw from the text that related back to the prompts discussion of the function of cruelty as a motivation or a major social or political factor. In fact, I failed to even discuss the social or political value of cruelty, which weakened my already limp analysis, pulling my essay even further down to a four. Although a four is what my essay deserved, I still think that there are elements of the writing that I can be proud of; I feel that my artistic selection of pronouns was definitely reminiscent of higher-level thinking and writing, but as it wasn't in keeping with the lens of the prompt, it was all for none. In future Open Essays, I want to take more time selecting a text and pre-writing to ensure I have appropriate material to provide a sufficient response to the prompt. More specifically, I want to bring my essay score up to a seven within the next month. Although this is three point higher in a much smaller time-frame than my previous goals, I know that this essay was not a strong reflection of my writing ability, even as a novice to the Open Prompt. 
_______________________________________
Responding to Ainsley White's Open Essay:
(http://whiteainsleyapenglish2015.blogspot.com)

Ainsley responded to the 2015 AP English Literature Open Prompt by discussing Lord of the Flies. Unfortunately, she forgot the author of the novel (William Golding), which could be a significant drawback on the AP Exam; any AP reader could easily argue that if a student can't remember the author of a literary work, they can hardly be capable of providing a thorough and significant analysis of the work that is much more than just plot summary. In my personal opinion, Ainsley was still able to provide a few pieces of apt reference to the text that included specific and accurate evidence, which restored some of the ethos that was lost in the very beginning. Although there were a few pieces of specific, supporting evidence, Ainsley's essay relied heavily upon plot summary to support her thesis. This immediately pulls her essay down to a five, even without taking any other factors into consideration. Her third paragraph was pretty bulky, and she could have easily made the information here more concise. Though there is this room for improvement, with the essay as it sits, the chunky and unstructured paragraph is an organization distraction and disrupts the essay's flow of logic. Ainsley's essay falls somewhere in the three to four range, but I feel that her essay is far from demonstrating inept writing, and there weren't necessarily any errors with misreading, so a four would be a more appropriate score. Once Ainsley sets a few measurable goals, she will be on the right track to take another swing at the Open Essay. One goal I might suggest she set is to find five novels that she is comfortable writing about. Building a bank of knowledge regarding these texts, including Themes, Characters, Motifs, and Author Names, would help her to establish more credibility in her writing. Overall, this essay may not have scored very high on the one-to-nine scale, but there is a lot Ainsley can take from just having the opportunity to write an Open Essay, something she is totally new to - something we all are totally new to.