better to have love & have laws: a psychic rapprochement of subjectivity & symbolic...

8/13/2019 Better to Have Love & Have Laws: A Psychic Rapprochement of Subjectivity & Symbolic Dispossession in The God…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/better-to-have-love-have-laws-a-psychic-rapprochement-of-subjectivity- 1/25

Better to Have Love & Have Laws:

A Psychic Rapprochement of Subjectivity & Symbolic Dispossession in

The God of Small Things

“Ironically, his struggle is the reverse of an actor’s struggle—he strives not to enter a

part but to escape it. But this is what he cannot do. In his abject defeat lies his supremetriumph.”

-A. Roy

Arundhati Roy’s magnum opus— he !od of "mall hings— is a rhizomatically-

constituted portrait of the unspea#able itself . Transformations of Absence (for lac# of a

better term) structure the paradoxical orld of !oss" #esire" and $rohibition that ecome to %no as Ayemenem. The no&el is rife ith psychic trauma and grammatical

irre&erence' it is a story that aspires to transcend the oppressi&e methods of ymbolic

representation and the literary meaning-ma%ing process itself . At it’s best" Roy’s orld is

a seemingly boundless and mystical literary experience that absorbs the reader into a

multi-&erse characterized by a momentary freedom from ubecti&e identity and the

psychological di&ision(s) it mandates. *t is a brief escape from the #esire" !oss" and

labyrinthine $rohibition that en&isage rubrics of ubecti&e and +ollecti&e identities in

the ,rdered orld of rules and regulations. Throughout a story irre&ocably rought ith

&iolent psychic di&isions" Roy is someho able to offer us a ay of settling ith the

poerful gap beteen the elf and the ,ther—it is another way of being entirely—one

that esches linguistic limitation and dichotomous thought for an escape into a pre-

ubecti&e %ingdom ruled by The od of mall Things' it is an ascendance into !acan’s

jouissance — an opportunity to slip (bac%) into the simple" unser&ing isdom of

children (Roy /01)2 that e ha&e all tragically forgotten.

The aim of this essay—first and foremost—is to explore the &arious

transformations of hat—for no—can only be referred to as $bsence. This Absence is

able to ta%e on many forms" and e ill examine them meticulously as they e&ol&e

throughout Roy’s story" shaping the li&es of her characters in nearly e&ery ay

imaginable—from #esire to $rohibition and !oss—perceptions and definitions of hat is



absent or hat should be absent constitute the social orld of Ayemenem" and the

psychic orld of each of its inhabitants. *t is also my intention to bring Roy’s literary

piece into con&ersation ith contemporary theoretical conceptions of Absence" in order to

pro&ide a supporti&e theoretical frameor% upon hich e can further explore the

transcendental methods that Roy is offering. * ill dra theoretical parallels to &arious

ideas from the fields of $sychoanalysis" 3eminism" and 4ueer Theory—including

competing conceptions of 5elancholia" 3antasy" $rohibition" ubecti&ity" ender"

6istory" and notions of the ,ther"2 all the hile insisting on a rapprochement of Roy’s

stunningly humble literary piece" and the unforgi&ing speculation and occasional

con&iction of theorists including 7udith 8utler" igmund 3reud" 7ac9ues !acan" and

la&o :ize%. ;xamining the or% of these theorists alongside he !od of "mall hings, *

see% to illuminate ne methods and ideas for engaging ith Absence and the ,ther.

Absence is—ironically— what gives this story its presence, and Roy astes no

time illustrating this paradoxical antagonism<

=ith the certitude of a true belie&er" >ellya $aapen had assured the tins that

there as no such thing in the orld as a blac% cat. 6e said that there ere only

blac% cat-shaped holes in the ?ni&erse.There ere so many stains on the road.

9uashed 5iss 5itten-shaped stains in the ?ni&erse.

9uashed frog-shaped stains in the ?ni&erse.9uashed cros that had tried to eat the s9uashed frog-shaped stains in the

?ni&erse.

9uashed dogs that ate the s9uashed cro-shaped stains in the ?ni&erse.3eathers. 5angoes. pit.

All the ay to +ochin (Roy @).

>ellya $aapen’s hardened philosophy regarding BBBBBBBB-shaped holes in the uni&erse

presents us ith both the premiere narrative e%perience in Roy’s story" as ell as the

premiere theoretical antagonism at the heart of the $sychoanalytic" 3eminist" and 4ueer

theory that e ill utilize in order to thro Roy’s orld of !oss into relief.

!et us turn first to the 5elancholic struggles of one of Roy’s most tragic

characters—Ammu. Ammu is the mother of paternal tins ;stha and Rahel" her only

children—the result of her one and only failed marriage.C *t is fruitless" hoe&er" to spea%

1 He proposed to Ammu five days ater they first met Ammu didn’t

pretend to be in love with him. She just weighed the odds and accepted. She thought

that anything, anyone at all, would be better than returning to Ayemenem !"#.

$



of Ammu ithout spea%ing simultaneously of >elutha" the fountainhead of Ammu’s

#esire. >elutha—the ?ntouchable collateral of *ndia’s caste system—is forbidden from

entering or interacting ith the Touchable orld that Ammu inhabits" sa&e for his or% in

her 3amily’s pic%ling business. Throughout childhood" Ammu and >elutha maintain an

appropriate" yet tantalizing distance from each other—at least physically. +areful ne&er to

Touch the ?ntouchable" Ammu’s fingers ould de&elop a laser-sharp talent for pic%ing

up boats" boxes" and small indmills—offerings from the palms of >elutha’s hands—

to%en representations of his exuberant affection for her.

,ut of >elutha’s prohibited palms blooms Ammu’s carnal #esire—a #esire that

ould remain repressed most of her life. And out of this festering repression emerges

Ammu’s orld of &oss —the first transformation of Absence that e ill examine.

Ammu’s persistent state of listlessness and resignation throughout the story (the result" in

part" of her forbidden #esire for >elutha) becomes a sort of psychological identity for

Ammu' it is a state of unfinished grie&ing first made famous by 3reud in his publication

of 'ourning and 'elancholia. Ammu’s 5elancholia is brimming ith forfeited (but not

forgotten) #esire(s). This" in addition to the shameful eight of failed matrimony" offers

the reader an image of a young 5other fatalistically calcified by the daily repression of

her #esire" and the unfinished grief for the !oss of a presence that as" perhaps" ne&er

there to begin ith<

+lic%.

Ammu loo%ed at herself in the long mirror on the bathroom door and the specterof her future appeared in it to moc% her. $ic%led. ray. Rheumy-eyed. +ross-stitch

roses on a slac%" sun%en chee%.

=ithered breasts that hung li%e eighted soc%s. #ry as a bone beteen her legs"the hair feather-hite. pare. As brittle as a pressed fern.

%in that fla%ed and shed li%e sno.

Ammu shi&ered.=ith that cold feeling on a hot afternoon that !ife had been !i&ed (/C/).

The objects of #esire that are lost in Ammu’s life—a reputation" a husband" a lo&er" a

ish" a future—constitute the fodder of her 5elancholia. The taboo nature of her longing

for >elutha is the centrifugal force that %eeps Ammu’s unfinished process of grieving

constantly spinning—ho can she grie&e a !oss for an ?ntouchable man that as ne&er

hers to begin ithD ,r is $rohibition itself a type of !ossD 6ere" again" e see the lines

!



beteen Absence and $resence slip out of focus. And hat exactly is this listlessness that

possesses AmmuD =hat is this perpetual sense of not ust loss" but losing D =hat is this

5elancholia" exactly" and ho does it operate ith regards to AmmuD

*nspired by 3reud’s groundbrea%ing or% in 'ourning and 'elancholia" and he

(go and he Id, 7udith 8utler offers us a salient reconceptualization of $sychoanalytic

theories regarding loss and 5elancholia throughout her ritings in he )sychic &ife of

)ower. The con&entional 3reudian conception of 5elancholy is one centered around

!oss" and" more specifically" hat 8utler paraphrases as the unfinished process of

grie&ing2 (E/). This grief emerges from a !oss—any type of loss—be it the loss of a

lo&ed one" the loss of a fortune" or the loss of an ideal. *t is also" and most importantly in

this story" the result of forbidden #esire and the !oss of possibility that accompanies

#esire’s repression" as ell as its percei&ed fulfillment.

5elancholia" hoe&er" is indeed as paradoxical as Absence itself" in that it is not

simply a loss" but an unfinished process that is actually more productive than it is

deductive. *ndeed" the 5elancholic process is not close-ended" and may—perhaps—

never actually come to an end" instead becoming internalized and reincarnated through

the process of identification. *dentification is crucial to understanding Ammu’s character

ith regards to the obects of #esire that she tries unsuccessfully to relin9uish as

5elancholia comes to dominate and define her psychic life.

*n perhaps her most renoned or%— !ender rouble —7udith 8utler recounts

3reud’s hypothesis regarding the moment of identification2 in the 5elancholic process"

hereby the loss of a #esire(d) obect" causes the ego to<

FGH incorporate that other into the &ery structure of the ego" ta%ing on

attributes of the other and sustaining2 the other through magical acts of

imitation. The loss of the other hom one desires and lo&es is o&ercome

through a specific act of identification that see%s to harbor that other ithin the &ery structure of the self (@E-@I).

6ere lies—more explicity—the 5elancholic paradox< an obect of #esire that is

seemingly lost , is actually gained —absorbed and indentified —by the process of

identification that 3reud originally proposes. ;&en #esire that as ne&er fulfilled" or

obects of #esire that ere ne&er attained to begin ith (Ammu’s >elutha)" are subect to

the identifying processes of 5elancholia.

%



Another stri%ing personification of this 5elancholic condition is found in 8aby

Jochamma—Ammu’s Aunt—and her isyphean struggle to attract the attention of 3ather

5ulligan" the handsome *rish 5on% ho continually reects her ad&ances" including her

calculating +atholic transformation" e&entually choosing celibacy o&er 8aby. This

reection" hoe&er simple and benign" festers inside 8aby Jochamma until the day

3ather 5ulligan dies' then— fantastic release*

6is reection of her in life (gentle and compassionate though it as) asneutralized by death. *n her memory of him" he embraced her. 7ust her. *n the ay

a man embraces a oman. ,nce he as dead" 8aby Jochamma stripped 3ather

5ulligan of his ridiculous saffron robes and re-clothed him in the +oca-+ola

cassoc% she so lo&ed. (6er senses feasted" beteen changes" on that lean"conca&e" +hristli%e body.) he snatched aay his begging bol" pedicured his

horny 6indu soles and ga&e him bac% his comfortable sandals. he re-con&erted

him into the high-stepping camel that came to lunch on Thursdays.And e&ery night" night after night" year after year" in diary after diary after diary"

she rote< * lo&e you * lo&e you (/1/).

3ather 5ulligan’s death—his physical demise and subse9uent orldly Absence—leads"

ironically" to his immortal presence within 8aby Jochamma' he becomes her 3antastic

sou&enoir" the commodified &estige—the 5elancholic artifact—of her unac%noledged

#esire and unfinished grie&ing. 8aby Jochamma’s psychic +antasy —the imaginati&e

orld here saffron robes2 gi&e ay to +oca-+ola cassoc%(s)2 is hat guarantees the

3ather’s eternal presence" and distracts 8aby from a orld of pragmatism that demands

she face the truth of her reection and obsolescence.

3antasy offers hat might at first seem li%e a elcome escape from the mechanic

oppression of 5elancholia and the #esire it produces' 3ather 5ulligan is gone" but ith

his departure" his presence finally arri&es" tuc%ed neatly in 8aby Jochamma’s diaries" in

her pages—to bend and flatten as she pleases. 6o are e to distinguish" then" absence

from presence" love from loss" %ittens from blac% holesD Absence is only Absence hen

presence abounds to oppose it' this is the oppositional nature of the ,rdered orld and"

more specifically here" ubecti&e identity. ;&erything exists in relation to its antithesis—

this pro&ides the di&isions necessary for psycho-social cohesion. 8ut these separations—

elf &s. ,ther' ubect &s. ,bect—are consistently exposed by Roy to be a grand fallacy.

The melding of Tins and lo&ers causes polemical con&iction to ither as permeation the

cyclically paradoxical nature of psychic experience and identity becomes e&ident.

&



uch is the case ith #esire—a phenomenon con&entionally understood as an

inclination that yields to linear" causal logic" i.e. If I attain the object of my desire, that

desire will be successfully fulfilled. This seems only logical on the surface" but logic has

its limits" and it meticulous structures begin to brea% don not only theoretically" but also

&iscerally and narrati&ely for the reader" as the uncomfortable realization sets in that

#esire is actually never fulfilled—its &ery essence lies in its unattainable existence—the

moment a desire is ostensibly fulfilled2 is not the resolution of that desire" but on the

contrary" it is merely a transformation of that desire to another state of longing and

obect-lust.

6ere it is ise to note the relationship of all these phenomena to our primary

exploration regarding the hat as hereunto referred to as $bsence. =hate&er e decide

to call it—be it $bsence" &ac# " &oss" egation" the ot-here" the ot-et " the ot-ow

—as the &ery significance of its elusi&e poer lies in its evasion of attainment or

possession. #esire’s ability to e&ade fulfillment renders the indi&idual poerless" and this

struggle for poer itself transforms #esire into an /ther —a forces that exceeds the

ubect enigmatically. parallels the struggle of the indi&idual to escape ymbolic

existence. And though 3antasy may seem to offer some relief from #esire" both are

essentially trapped outside the ubect in a orld of ,therness.

la&o :ize%" in an article entitled 3rom 0he 1uois2 to 3antasy< Reading !acan

ith ;yes =ide hut2 in&estigates 3antasy ith regard to the ,ther and" particularly"

!acan’s notion of the capital -/ ,ther<

FGHF!acanH e9uates the big ,ther ith the impenetrability of another subect

beyond the Kall of language"K putting us at the opposite end of the predominantimage !acan presents of the big ,ther" that of the inexorable logic of an

automatism hich runs the sho" so that hen the subect spea%s" he is"

unbe%nonst to himself" merely Kspo%en"K not master in his on house. =hat"then" is the big ,therD The anonymous mechanism of the symbolic order" or

another subect in his or her radical alterity" a subect from hom * am fore&er

separated by the Kall of languageK (:ize% C)D

The all of language2 that is imposed by !acan’s ymbolic order2 is a critical

component of any in&estigation that see%s to pro&ide a substanti&e account of the ,ther.

=ithin this essay" language is uni9uely instructi&e in a number of ays' it is on one hand

hat enables the literary process itself" but it is also" !acan belie&es" an inherently

'



restricti&e and decepti&e conse9uence of the inability of the ubect to escape itself.

!anguage is" in a sense" a 3antastic escape into the orld of ,rder that structures

indi&idual and communal psychic cohesion.

3antasy is the penicillin of the 5elancholic" and 8aby Jochamma is certainly not

the only one ith a fantastic cure for this ailment' in fact" Ammu is perhaps more

hopelessly dependent on the 3antastic than any other character in this story. Ammu—a

oman prematurely condemned to a life she ne&er anted" ith to children and no

gron man to !o&e—her greatest 3antasy (or is it her greatest 3esire24 is to be blissfully

unaware —not of the future" but of the present —of things as such<

*t asn’t hat lay at the end of her road that frightened Ammu as much as the

nature of the road itself. Lo milestones mar%ed its progress. Lo trees gre along

it. Lo dappled shados shaded it. Lo mists rolled o&er it. Lo birds circled it. Lo

tists" no turns or hairpin bends obscured e&en momentarily her clear &ie of theend. This filled Ammu ith an aful dread" because she as not the %ind of

oman ho anted her future told. he dreaded it too much. o if she ere

granted one small ish" perhaps it ould only ha&e been Lot to Jno. Lot to%no hat each day held in store for her. Lot to %no here she might be" next

month" next year. Ten years on. Lot to %no hich ay her road might turn and

hat lay beyond the bend. And Ammu %ne. ,r thought she %ne" hich asreally ust as bad (because if in a dream you’&e eaten fish" it means you’&e eaten

fish) (/CE).

Ammu’s dreams (or reality) of fish-eating (or not) represent a paradoxical conse9uence of

the #esire-3antasy conundrum that :ize% li%ens to Jantian notions of egative &s.

Indefinite udgment/ Ammu exists ithin this paradox as the monstrous2 category

beteen the Legati&e and the *ndefinite. Ammu #nows” is not the same as Ammu does

not #now”" hich is also entirely different from Ammu is un#nowing.” There are things

$ *n his +riti9ue of $ure Reason" Jant introduced a %ey distinction beteen negati&e and

indefinite udgment< the positi&e statement Mthe soul is mortalM can be negated in to

ays. =e can either deny a predicate (Mthe soul is not mortalM)" or affirm a non-predicate

(Mthe soul is non-mortalM). The difference is exactly the same as the one" %non to e&eryreader of tephen Jing" beteen Mhe is not deadM and Mhe is undeadM. The indefinite

udgment opens up a third domain hich undermines the distinction beteen dead and

non-dead (ali&e)< the MundeadM are neither ali&e nor dead" they are precisely the monstrousMli&ing deadM. And the same goes for MinhumanM< Mhe is not humanM is not the same as Mhe is

inhumanM. M6e is not humanM means simply that he is external to humanity" animal or

di&ine" hile Mhe is inhumanM means something thoroughly different" namely the fact thathe is neither human nor inhuman" but mar%ed by a terrifying excess hich" although it

negates hat e understand as humanity" is inherent to being-human (:ize% I).

(



Ammu %nos" and there are thing she does not %no" but existing in the perpetual form

of the un%noing2 is terrifying for someone li%e Ammu" ho belie&es that she %nos it

all—e&en if she doesn’t thin% she ants to. :ize% goes on to maintain that"

The first thing to note about fantasy is that it literally teaches us ho to desire<

fantasy does not mean that" hen * desire a straberry ca%e and cannot get it inreality" * fantasize about eating it' the problem is rather" ho do * %no that *desire a straberry ca%e in the first place. This is hat fantasy tells me (I).

:ize% shos us here that 3antasy is an instructi&e circuit ithout hich the #esiring

machine might fall apart. *t seems" again paradoxically" that 3antasy replaces the actual

possibility of fulfilling2 #esire (obtaining the obect of #esire)" and by filling in this

possibility ith impossibility" instructs us to hat it is e are #esiring—not the obect of

#esire itself" or e&en the appeasement of #esire as such" but the crushing perpetuity of

the 3antastic chase. *t follos then" that #esire is only #esire in that it refuses fulfillment"

it is not something that one has (* have a #esire toG)" but instead exists only in its on

absence—an absence that e in turn stuff to the brim ith 3antasy’s colorful fodder.

And if #esire is only #esire by &irtue of its on uncompromising impossibility—

if #esire is defined by its inescapable per&asi&eness—ho are e to be certain e %no

anything about #esireD +an e e&en be sure that our #esire is actually ours2 *s #esire

proprietaryD *s it something internal" e&enD =here does it—do they—#esire"

5elancholia" 3antasy—come fromD 3or :ize%" the nature of #esire is irre&ocably

founded in the un%noable orld of the ,ther'E echoing !acan" :ize% insists that

e&ery desire andNor obect of #esire is essentially and intrinsically an ,ther2

experienced by the subect<

FGH the subect desires only insofar as it experiences the ,ther itself as desiring"

as the site of an unfathomable desire" as if an opa9ue desire is emanating from

him or her. The other not only addresses me ith an enigmatic desire" it alsoconfronts me ith the fact that * myself do not %no hat * really desire" ith the

enigma of my on desire (/).

,ur inability to #now the ,ther and /ther-ly #esire insists e confront our own

un%noability—ust as the ,ther is a mystery to us" so e are to the ,ther' e are

precisely the un%noability that e encounter in e&ery ,ther. =e are merely breathing

! The original 9uestion of desire is not directly K=hat do * antDK" but K=hat do others

ant from meD =hat do they see in meD =hat am * for the othersDK (:ize% O).

)



mysteries" trying desperately to reach outside of oursel&es" to experience the ,ther and"

subse9uently" the elf.

The elf &s. ,ther dynamic is the most pre&alent and haunting theoretical impasse

discussed here' it is at the heart of 9uestions of #esire" 5elancholy" 3antasy" Absence"

$resence" and—as * ill illustrate later—6istory and $rohibition. #esire and the ,ther

are inextricably lin%ed by their per&asi&e conduct and their potentially destructi&e

psychic potentials. *ndeed" any theoretically salient rapprochement of the elfN,ther

di&ide contains the potential for psychic and e&en physical annihilation. The annihilation

* am spea%ing of here is the &iolent conse9uence of the gap beteen elf and ,ther"

particularly the elf and the ymbolic representation it mandates through (in this case)

language. As :ize% explains<

There is a gap hich fore&er separates the fantasmatic %ernel of the subectMs being from the more superficial modes of his or her symbolic or imaginary

identifications. *t is ne&er possible for me to fully assume (in the sense of

symbolic integration) the fantasmatic %ernel of my being< hen * approach it toomuch" hen * come too close to it" hat occurs is hat !acan calls aphanisis (the

self-obliteration) of the subect< the subect loses hisNher symbolic consistency" it

disintegrates (1).

This threat of annihilation—of someho escaping the ymbolic ,rder to assume a non-

representational mode of existence means gi&ing up ubecti&e identity itself' the ubect

isn’t able to maintain psychic cohesion unless it can conceive of itself ubecti&ely" and in

order to maintain this cohesion" &iolent di&isions must be established—thus the

ubectN,bect and elfN,ther bifurcation that is so important to Roy’s piece and the

theories e ha&e examined thus far.

The potential for this annihilation is personified by the Tins—;sthappen and

Rahel.I The Tins represent a +onstant ThreatO to the ,rder of the 3amily and e&en

*ndian society as such. This threat—as it is percei&ed—emerges from the seemingly

magical psychic wholeness or congruency that characterizes the li&es of the Tins" both

% 8ecause hate&er he as" 6e as too (IC).5 F8aby JochammaH didn’t e&en trust the tins. he deemed them +apable of Anything.

Anything at all. They might e&en steal their present bac% she thought"—and realized ith

a pang ho 9uic%ly she had re&erted to thin%ing of them as though they ere a singleunit once again. After all those years. #etermined not to let the past creep up on her" she

altered her thought at once. he. he might steal her present bac% (CO).

"



hen they are together as ell as the times hen they are not.P The Tins share a

prenatal connection —a psychic space that esches di&ision for the ubect-less orld—

an experience so complete" that it can’t help but to be maligned at the hands of perhaps

the most sacred !o&e !a of all—hat 8utler ill call the incest taboo.2

;stha and Rahel are the embodiment of elf and ,ther imploding—a +himera of

#esire turned bac% upon itself" flirting innocently and oyously ith the prospect of

ubecti&e annihilation. 3or the Tins" the separation of elf and ,ther is blurred in the

most fundamentally biological sense. 3rom conception" the dizygotic Tins themsel&es

represent a paradox' they are neither completely separate" nor completely hole—that is

to say" they are percei&ed neither as one —hich might be the implication of

monozygotic tins—nor as to completely separate" autocratic indi&iduals. *ndeed" the

tins exist ithin the indefinite udgment that :ize% references earlier—hat * ill call

/ne un/ther.

The de&elopmental nature of dizygotic tins is 9uite uni9ue' instead of a single

fertilized egg that splits into to" dizygotic tins are concei&ed hen two individual

sperm cells fertilize two individual eggs. The result is a remar%able nine months in hich

to small li&es harbor distinct genetic dispositions" though they share the same sacred"

ordless space here they ould gro into s%in and bones" before being e&icted from

this shallo steel omb2 (Roy C@) and thron head-first into the ymbolic ,rder. The

prenatal is not only a biological conception" but Roy’s most primal metaphor—the pre-

subecti&e state of holeness that the Tins come to represent. Roy breathes cosmic

dimension into this pre-uridical existence—ith haunting detail she describes hat can

only be the first breath of dual consciousness for ;stha and Rahel<

FGH he carried inside him the memory of a young man ith an old man’s

mouth. The memory of a sollen face and a smashed" upside-don smile. ,f aspreading pool of clear li9uid ith a bare bulb reflected in it. ,f a bloodshot eye

that had opened" andered and then fixed its gaze on him. ;stha. And hat had

;stha doneD 6e had loo%ed into that belo&ed face and said< Qes.Qes" it as him.

The ord ;stha’s octopus couldn’t get at< Qes. 6oo&ering didn’t seem to help. *t

as lodged there" deep inside some fold or furro" li%e a mango hair beteen

molars. That couldn’t be orried loose (E/).

6 6mmmGD2 Rahel said" playing for time" trying to decipher ;stha’s frantic thought

signals (@@).

1*



This is the threat the Tins pose to e&eryone around them—the threat that perhaps

di&ision itself—separation as e %no it—is a fallacy. 3or most people" this is not an

acceptable ay to structure con&entional life" and pragmatism ine&itably reigns supreme"

supported by the psychic &iolence that forges ubecti&e identity and maintains social

cohesion. 8ut this annihilation—threatening as it may seem—pales in comparison to the

destruction rought by the raging orld of ,rder that demands obedience. The result of

5elancholia that remains unac%noledged is pure Rage.

The organic embodiment and primary metaphor Roy utilizes to represent this

gnaing Rage and resentment is )appachi’s 'oth" the entomological reminder of the

anger that blooms from an inability to reconcile (among others things) the gap beteen

elf and ,ther that is only idened by the 5elancholic process. This Rage is often

directed at the ,ther" particularly in romantic contexts" as sloly the adored ,ther

becomes more of a psychological threat to one’s on ubecti&e cohesion' if * realize

parts of the other inside of myself " * ha&e—in a sense—destabilized hat it as that

originally set me apart.

The ,ther is essentially an existential threat to one’s on psychic stability and identity'

this is further exacerbated in the case of the belo&ed.

The existential predicament of the /ther is an anxiety-ridden experience caused

by the mystery of ulterior #esire' this being that e experience as the /ther has an

intrinsic ability to plant fear" paranoia" and self-destruction ithin us all. The ,ther—a

creature that--

FGH is perfectly harmless' hen it passes before your eyes" you hardly notice it

and immediately forget it again. 8ut as soon as it someho" in&isibly" gets intoyour ears" it begins to de&elop" it hatches" and cases ha&e been %non here it has

penetrated into the brain and flourished there de&astatingly" li%e the pneumococci

in dogs hich gain entrance through the nose... This creature is Qour Leighbor(:ize% E).

:ize% extrapolates from this horrifying description of the ,ther" adding that" *t is for this

reason that finding oneself in the position of the belo&ed is so &iolent" traumatic e&en<

being lo&ed ma%es me feel directly the gap beteen hat * am as a determinate being and

the unfathomable in me hich causes lo&e2 (*bid) The psychic poer of this gap that

:ize% spea%s of should not be underestimated" because out of this gap emerges Rage—

11



the rage of a ubect confronted ith its on ymbolic restriction and insignificance. The

resultD $appachi’s 5oth" and the &iolent shado it cast o&er the 3amily.

*n her groing years" Ammu had atched her father ea&e his hideous eb. 6eas charming and urbane ith &isitors" and stopped ust short of faning on them

if they happened to be hite. 6e donated money to orphanages and leprosyclinics. 6e or%ed hard on his public profile as a sophisticated" generous" moralman. 8ut alone ith his ife and children he turned into a monstrous" suspicious

bully" ith a strea% of &icious cunning. They ere beaten" humiliated and then

made to suffer the en&y of friends and relations for ha&ing such a onderfulhusband and father (C@/).

This is the terrifying conse9uence of the ymbolic di&ide beteen $appachi’s

representati&e existence—a man ith a heart for lepers and orphans—and the &isceral

reality of a man ith an inability to treat those closest to him ith anything but &iolent

hate and disdain. ?nable to recei&e hat’s being offered to him—perhaps !o&e" if !o&e

is nothing more than ymbolic dispossession—threatens $appachi. 6is on elfhood is

compromised and" li%e a cornered animal" he chooses to annihilate rather than be

annihilated . mashing chairs and faces (ith brass &ases) ust might afford him the

dearth of affection and attention he belie&es he deser&es" in order to be #esired. The

ubect unra&els as it is faced ith its on ymbolic dispossession" in this case it is the

realized incongruence beteen hat $appachi is and hat $appachi claims to be (the

performance he puts on for the lepers" as opposed to the ra chaos of him behind closed

doors) that begins to pull &iolently at his psychological thread.

7udith 8utler offers a 9uite illuminating deconstruction of this paradigm (the gap

beteen ubecti&e existence and e&erything else) ithin a gendered frameor%' by

examining the process of hat she calls refused identification ithin the heterose%ual

matri%, 8utler is able to gi&e a frighteningly rele&ant analysis of gendered identity that

seems to articulate beautifully the plot of $appachi’s 5oth. +onsider" in the folloing

passage" that homo might indicate the "elf " hile hetero may represent the /ther <

8ecoming a KmanK FGH re9uires repudiating femininity as a precondition for theheterosexualization of sexual desire and its fundamental ambi&alence. *f a man be

comes heterosexual by repudiating the feminine" here could that repudiation li&e

except in an identification hich his heterosexual career see%s to denyD *ndeed"the desire for the feminine is mar%ed by that repudiation< he ants the oman he

ould ne&er be. 6e ouldnMt be caught dead being her< therefore he ants her.

he is his repudiated identification (a repudiation he sustains as at once

1$



identification and the obect of his desire). ne of the most an!ious aims of his

"esire will be to elaborate the "ifference between him an" her# an" he will

see$ to "iscover an" install proof of that "ifference% His wantin will be

haunte" by a "rea" of bein what he wants# so that his wantin will also

always be a $in" of "rea". $recisely because hat is repudiated and hence lost is

preser&ed as a repudiated identification" this desire ill attempt to o&ercome anidentification hich can ne&er be complete ( )sychic &ife CE@).

This brings us bac% to the central paradox of this essay" hich is the lac%2 or Absence

that characterizes Roy’s no&el through its many transformations and manifestations. 6ere

again" Absence—in this case expressed through repudiation —is anything but

inconse9uential" it is actually productive —in this case of heterosexual desire itself.

8utler’s logic can be transmuted to say something li%e *f a ubect becomes a

ubect by repudiating the ,ther" here could that repudiation li&e except in an

identification hich his ubecti&e career see%s to denyD2 8y seemingly ridding the

heterosexual self of homosexual possibility" the 5elancholic process is set in motion yet

again and" as * belie&e 8utler is suggesting—this homosexual possibility is absorbed into

the heteronormati&e psyche" e&er-present through its daily and perpetual repudiation.

The repudiated identification and the obect of #esire become one in the same'

#esire emerges from the &ery prohibition of identities percei&ed as ,ther. =e desire hat

e cannot become" hich is free from the ubecti&eNrepresentational gap itself" and the

ultimate #esire this gap creates" hich is to destroy the psychic di&ide itself—to be free

of ymbolic oppression and absorbed in ignorant experience and psychic escape. This is"

perhaps" the threat of True !o&e—the destruction of the elf—the annihilation or

obliteration of the ubect’s symbolic existence" and the ra exposure of its fantasmatic

%ernel that renders the "elf5/ther di&ide remar%ably permeable. This is exactly the threat

the Tins represent" and it is hy they hold such mythological status in Roy’s story. This

is also hat $appachi is running from" and his inability to face it is hat dri&es him to

annihilate" and through this inescapable &iolence" $appachi’s Rage sprouts ings and

ta%es flight—from $appachi to 5ammachi before resting on the young heart of little

Ammu— $mmu#utty*

As she gre older" Ammu learned to li&e ith this cold" calculating cruelty. hede&eloped a lofty sense of inustice and the mulish" rec%less strea% that de&elops

in omeone mall ho has been bullied all their li&es by omeone 8ig. he did

1!



exactly nothing to a&oid 9uarrels and confrontations. *n fact" it could be argued

that she sought them out" perhaps e&en enoyed them (Roy" 1@).

The lofty sense of inustice2 that settles ithin Ammu is the sense of con&iction the

5oth offers to its neest host—it is the con&enience of %noing hat is rong and hat

is right that the ,rdered orld offers' it bolsters the di&ision beteen the elf and ,ther"

&indicating ubecti&e fantasies hile re&eling in ymbolic distance and the self-aare

gaze it pro&ides.

=ith a reneed sense of psychic cohesion and ymbolic purpose" children li%e

Ammu gro up to inhabit the Adult orld that demands constant ymbolic negotiation

beteen indi&iduals. The &essel for this is" of course" the premiere form of representation

utilized in the ,rdered orld—hat !acan deems the all of language.2 This all"2

hoe&er" turns out to be much more than a simple di&ide. 3or Rahel the all continues to

gro ith a mind of its on" tisting and folding" transforming itself from a plum

di&ision into a labyrinth of if and thens —a strange linguistic riddle that demands

participation and" li%e a game of 'onopoly" language itself becomes a type of psychic

currency cherished by the Adult orld of rules and transgression. Rahel experiences her

first roll of dice —her first aortic dance ith $appachi’s 5oth—on the night that the

3amily tra&els to see the =estern spectacle that is he "ound of 'usic*

#’you %no hat happens hen you hurt peopleD2 Ammu said. =hen you hurt

people" they begin to lo&e you less. That’s hat careless ords do. They ma%e

people lo&e you a little less2 (C0@).

This is Rahel’s first psycho-linguistic demerit" and it shocases the mercantile nature of

language as 9uite literally a type of currency—a critical e%change —that becomes a

necessary means of filling the gap beteen elf and ,ther' ords are" essentially the yarn

beteen your can and mine. =ords assign description and value to the ubect’s

experience—ma%ing the experiential communicable—penetrating the ,ther ithout

being absorbed into it . 3or Ammu" it seems" not only are these ords &aluable" but so is

her affection—9uite literally the amount of love that she has for Rahel can be reduced " it

is 9uantifiable and subect to demerits hen Rahel does not use the ords Ammu

belie&es are appropriate—that’s hat careless ords do. They ma%e people lo&e you

less2 (*bid). This demerit" hoe&er" has no e9ual" there is no simple exchange or tit for

1%



tat2 that can regain Ammu’s affection—the Adult orld could ne&er be that simple.

*nstead of the punishment fitting the crime" the transgressor is lead through a psychic

maze of indignant retribution<

Ammu"2 Rahel said" shall * miss dinner as my punishmentD2

he as %een to exchange punishments. Lo dinner" in exchange for Ammu lo&ingher the same as before.As you please"2 Ammu said. 8ut * ad&ise you to eat. *f you ant to gro" that

is. FGH

8ut hat about my punishmentD2 Rahel said. Qou ha&en’t gi&en me my punishmentS2

ome things come ith their on punishments"2 8aby Jochamma said. As

though she as explaining a sum that Rahel couldn’t understand.ome things come ith their on punishments. !i%e bedrooms ith built-in

cupboards. They ould all learn more about punishments soon. That they came in

different sizes. That some ere so big they ere li%e cupboards ith built-in

bedrooms. Qou could spend your hole life in them" andering through dar%shel&ing2 (C0).

The sum that Rahel couldn’t understand2 is the tisted tally of the Adult game' it is the

perpetuity of %eeping score in this incessant game that" once started" ne&er ends. 8aby

Jochamma is a &eteran of this game" and her sour piece of penal isdom brings her a

9uiet and miserable pleasure—the type of pleasure of elcoming a ne player (Rahel) to

the game.

8oth the Tins ould both become numb to this critical exchange" as children do"

and ;stha—along the ay—e&en de&elops a talent for recording these exchanges ith

receipts and other records" a talent that ould earn him the grotes9ue affection of the

Adults around him. 8ut the Adult game is not limited to the inter-ubecti&e orld of

indi&iduals' indeed" the most irre&ocably poerful and infinitely destructi&e force in

Roy’s no&el are the !o&e !as—

The las that laydon ho should be lo&ed" and ho.

And ho much.

6oe&er" for practical purposes" in a hopelessly practical orldG(EI).

The !o&e !as represent the ultimate manifestation of the Adult game—they

exceed the Adult game because they transcend the inter-ubecti&e le&el' they are the

rules hich entire nations and cultures li&e by—they constitute hat is taboo and hat is

not. As sure as the Adult game ma%es Adults of children" the !o&e !as ma%e citizens of

1&



indi&iduals. As sure as the indi&idual see%s ymbolic rele&ance" so do collecti&e societies

—in Lature" od" and +ulture. The !o&e !as shoulder the ci&ilized burden of ensuring

cultural cohesion and endogamic structures of sur&i&al.

The !o&e !as that go&ern us are not only repressi&e in the sense that they dictate

hat is forbidden" but are also productive ith regard to the social norms that they

reinforce. The creation of any !a2 produces not only the possibility of its &iolation—it

also intrinsically produces the #esire to &iolate this !a" so that ironically" the !a gi&es

birth to the &ery #esire than it hopes to 9uell. The !o&e !as form the basis of *ndia’s

caste system and entrenched endogamy that fatally structures #esire and $rohibition in

Ayemenem.

The threat posed by the Tins-- the incestuous threat of psychic holeness—is

second only" perhaps" to the threat posed by the romance of Ammu and >elutha—the

merging of Touchable and ?ntouchable. This transgression is paramount and

unforgi&eable" and >eluthas life—merely a hiccup in 6istory’s chest—ill be the price

paid for this transgression. Roy is not content" hoe&er" to simply shocase the &iolence

of cultural taboo and the ,rdered orld that the !o&e !as are trusted to protect' on the

contrary" Roy attempts to illuminate the primal fear that gi&es birth to the primal

categories of opposition that structure ubecti&e autonomy<

The tins ere too young to %no that these ere only history’s henchmen. ent

to s9uare the boo%s and collect the dues from those ho bro%e its las. *mpelled

by feelings that ere primal yet paradoxically holly impersonal. 3eelings ofcontempt born of inchoate" unac%noledged fear—ci&ilization’s fear of nature"

men’s fear of omen" poer’s fear of poerlessness.

5an’s subliminal urge to destroy hat he could neither subdue nor deify.

5en’s Leeds (//).

Roy summons an air of nonchalance in this passage' a stunningly &iolent scene' hat

some might consider the narrati&e climax of the no&el is described in excruciatingly

anticlimactic terms. =ith the enthusiasm and con&iction of an accountant at tax-time"

history’s henchmen2 attempt (successfully) to s9uare the boo%s and collect the dues2.

6istory" for Roy" is a businessman of sorts" conducting its business ith a professionalism

1'



that e ha&e come to expect and demand' as e often say< it’s nothing personal, just

business.

*n fact" * ould suggest that it can’t be anything personal " because the !o&e !as

themsel&es are the necessary precondition for the personal —for ubecti&e identity and

experience as such. Thus" by defending these !as" the henchmen2—in a con&oluted

sense—are breathing life into >elutha the &ery moment they pull it out of him. This is

hy it is easy for the henchmen to loo% aay—%illing >elutha is as noble as paying taxes

—a sacrifice for the greater" collecti&e good—an offering to the od of 8ig Things.@

*t’s imperati&e to realize ust ho insipid this &iolent phenomenon ( s6uaring the

boo#s) is ith regards to reinforcing 6istorical structures of prohibition andNor

acceptability. *mpelled by feelings that ere primal yet paradoxically holly

impersonal2—this is the feeling of the gap beteen elf and ,ther" experience and

aareness" ubect and ,bect. The feelings of contempt2 that Roy spea%s of are not

absolute" but inchoate2—unfinished and rudimentary' and as e ha&e seen—from

5elancholia to Rage" the potential for unfinished psychic processes of any sort to cause

damage is limitless.

This fear is 6uite productive' it is the cosmic %ernel that begets the !o&e !as and

ensures inter-subecti&e difference. 3rom ci&ilization’s fear of nature2 to man’s fear of

omen"2 and finally" poer’s fear of poerlessness"2 Roy traces the primordial

inescapability of opposition —be it cultural" natural" cosmic" psychic" social" or beyond. *t

is this structuring force that enables the paradoxical nature of #esire" $rohibition" and

ubecti&ity. Roy refers to 5an’s subliminal urge to destroy hat he could neither

subdue nor deify'2 this destructi&e urge seems to emerge from the ubect’s inability to

7 […] in some places" li%e the country that Rahel came from" &arious %inds of despair

competed for primacy. And that personal despair could ne&er be desperate enough. Thatsomething happened hen personal turmoil dropped by at the ayside shrine of the &ast"

&iolent" circling" dri&ing" ridiculous" insane" unfeasible" public turmoil of a nation. That

8ig od holed li%e a hot ind" and demanded obeisance. Then mall od (cozy andcontained" pri&ate and limited) came aay cauterized" laughing numbly at his on

temerity. *nured by the confirmation of his on inconse9uence" he became resilient and

truly indifferent Lothing mattered much. Lothing much mattered. And the less it

mattered" the less it mattered. *t as ne&er important enough. 8ecause =orse Things hadhappened. *n the country that she came from" poised fore&er beteen the terror of ar

and the horror of peace" =orse Things %ept happening (/0).

1(



ultimately and honestly externalize the ,ther. 3aced ith !acanian annihilation and

ymbolic dispossession on one hand" and the 5elancholic Rage of $appachi’s 5oth on

the other" it seems that one is left ith fe options hen it comes to simply dealing with

the ,ther—to ultimately settle ith poer and poerlessness.

*f not incestuous annihilation" hatD *f not 5elancholic !oss" then hatD Are

there any other optionsD *s there an ,ther-oriented mode of existence that is less

destructi&e" e&en minimallyD $erhaps through her story" Roy constructs a ne arena—a

realm of psychic possibility that is neither annihilated nor unac%noledged" but instead

escapes the destructi&e grip of dueling (#ualistic) thought that is so &ital to the ,rdered

orld. The third arena that Roy builds is constructed little by little —it is a orld ruled by

he !od of "mall hings —a orld hich captures us hen e least expect it"

transcending 6istory and suspending the reader in purely &isceral experience" li%e pic%led

pears floating in a elly ar.

*f Roy is indeed constructing a radically ne arena for engaging the orld of the

,ther" it is a stadium of possibility struggling against the totalizing poer of 6istory"

represented throughout the no&el by the haunting image of the 7istory 7ouse. 6istory"

along ith its spatial manifestation as the 7istory 7ouse" is the galactic force hich gi&es

birth to the !a and" conse9uently" #esire and $rohibition—the guardsmen of ,rder and

tructure that pull us out from the brin% of annihilation" yet thro us headlong into a

perpetually terrifying engagement ith the “unfathomable 8” (:ize% E) that lies ithin

us all.

The most unforgettable account of 6istory comes from +hac%o" the most polished

and seasoned—though certainly not the only1 — ambassadorial figure in this story.

+hac%o is constantly torn beteen hat he begrudges as the trite #esires of colonized

peoples" and the innate pri&ilege constituti&e of =esternN*mperial experience" hich he

experiences during his time at ,xford. 6e attempts to unra&el 6istory for the Tins"

trading his usual professorial tone for supernatural metaphors<

+hac%o told the tins that" though he hated to admit it" they ere all Anglophiles.

They ere a family of Anglophiles. $ointed in the rong direction" trapped

8 =hat Ambassadors and a half you’&e beenS2 8aby Jochamma said.

Ambassador ;. $el&is and Ambassador . *nsect hung their heads. And the otherthing" Rahel"2 Ammu said" * thin% it’s high time that you learned the difference beteen

+!;AL and #*RTQ. ;specially in this country2 (CI/).

1)



outside their on history and unable to retrace their steps—because their

footprints had been sept aay. 6e explained to them that history as li%e an old

house at night. =ith all the lamps lit. And ancestors hispering inside (OC).

=hen +hac%o says that they ha&e been pointed in the rong direction"2 and trapped

outside their on history"2 he is 9uite literally referring to the interception of indi&idual

li&es and broader *ndian identity in the name of =estern hegemony. natched up by the

brutal hand of the +olonizer" the +olonized is 9uite irre&ocably disoriented —footprints

FGH sept aay2—meaning that any cultural genealogy andNor national identity is

buried" effecti&ely rendered in&isible.

*t is not my aim here to try and deconstruct any colonial canon" or e&en to try and

synthesize or compartmentalize hundreds of years of +olonial thought and con9uest—a

con9uest that finds its strength in ymbolic and ideological domination. *t is my aim"

hoe&er" to expose and interrogate $sychic models of ,becti&ity and ubecti&ity—

#omination and ubugation—that protect and propagate a +olonial disposition that is

ultimately nothing more than another—another hopelessly &iolent reaction to the

unspea%able distance hich falls me and you.

To understand history"2 +hac%o said" e ha&e to go inside and listen to hat

they’re saying. And loo% at the boo%s and the pictures on the all. And smell the

smells.2The house had lain empty for years. >ery fe people had seen it. 8ut the tins

could picture it

The 6istory 6ouse.8ut e can’t go in"2 +hac%o explained" because e’&e been loc%ed out. And

hen e loo% in through the indos" all e see are shados. And hen e try

and listen" all e hear is a hispering. And e cannot understand the hispering" because our minds ha&e been in&aded by a ar. A ar that e ha&e on and lost.

The &ery orst sort of ar. A ar that captures dreams and re-dreams them. A ar

that has made us adore our con9uerors and despise oursel&esK (*bid).

3or +hac%o" understanding is a &isceral pri&ilege' it is e%perience that forms authentic

learning and understanding. 8eing able to smell the smells2 Fof AyemenemH or loo% at

the pictures2 Fof *ndiaH ould allo the spectator(s) to experience (at the &ery least) a

&isceral connection to the ancestral artifacts that" before +olonial appropriation" fortified

collecti&e *ndian identity. *nstead" they ha&e been loc%ed out2—%noc%ing on their own

doors" pea%ing through their own indos" trying desperately to catch a glimpse of the

1"



genealogical yo%e they belie&e to be hidden ust beyond the impenetrable shell of the

6istory 6ouse.

+hac%o’s sublime conception of the 6istory 6ouse and its tantalizing innards is

an example— par e%cellence— of 6istory’s utilization of the same paradoxical structures

of Absence (#esireN$rohibitionN5elancholia) that e ha&e considered and reconsidered

throughout this riting. As +hac%o explains" it is not that they are entirely e%cluded or

absent from the life inside the 6istory 6ouse—the life they used to %no as their on—

but it’s orse< they are tantalized" tempted" and decei&ed by the signs of life inside the

6ouse. A flash of light or an indiscernible hisper ithin the shell implants the

+olonized psyche ith the scintillatingly impossible hope of brea%ing on through to

encounter the zygotic mirage of 6istory’s own 3antasmatic %ernel— /rigin9 it is the

impossible pursuit of this false promise of origin that captures dreams2 and s%illfully

re-dreams them2 (*bid).

The traumatically hegemonic force of 6istory in&ol&es e&ery theoretical arena

discussed thus far" and the murderous tendencies of its narrati&e insistence are at the heart

of Roy’s no&el. 6istory is indeed the author of the !o&e !as" and the possibility of

cultural transgression dri&es all of the relationships in the story" from Ammu’s touching

of the ?ntouchable" to the tangled %not of incestuous escapism that comes to define ;stha

and Rahel.

The 6istorical imperati&e here is paradoxically double-edged' on the one hand" it

pro&ides cohesion and cultural identity to the nominally dispossessed" yet on the other

hand" it (fatally) demands adherence to the oppressi&e structures of normati&ity and

cultural norms that enable cohesi&e identity in the first place. Those ho do not identify

ith the cultural rubric in hich they exist ha&e &ery fe paths of resistance hen it

comes to brea%ing free of their particular hegemonic context. *n fact" the price that

>elutha pays to momentarily brea% free of this taboo is his own life.

*f e must utilize traditional literary categories to deconstruct he !od of "mall

hings" 6istory ould undoubtedly be the antagonist"2 though the beauty of Roy’s

riting and the salience of this story is founded in the author’s ability to elo9uently e&ade

such dualistic modes of thin%ing—escheing polemics for paradoxical nuance. The no&el

presents not only the brutalizing and murderous 6istorical forces that >elutha and other

$*



transgressors face" but also describes" 9uite poetically" the subecti&e and psycho-cultural

demand for cohesion that enables 6istory. This demand arises from the inchoate fear that

Roy spea%s of' it is poer’s fear of the poerless'2 it is the fear of ymbolic irrele&ance

of hich !acan arns' in short" it is the fear of being dispossessed <

8aby Jochamma’s fear lay rolled up on the car floor li%e a damp" clammycheroot. This as ust the beginning of it. The fear that o&er the years ould gro

to consume her. That ould ma%e her loc% her doors and indos. That ould

gi&e her to hairlines and both her mouths. 6ers too" as an ancient" age-old fear.The fear of being dispossessed (P@).

The fear of being dispossessed"2 is the primary moti&ation that implores the

6istoricizing process' it is this fear that gi&es ymbolic birth and identity to the ubect"

hile simultaneously threatening the existence of the ubect ith its on ymbolic

dissolution" should the ubect dare to escape the parameters of its on ymbolic

identity. These rules of engagement are present on the indi&idual le&el as ell as the

collecti&e le&el—from indi&idual psychic space to national boundaries—the (!acanian)

threat of ymbolic dispossession is an incredibly poerful and producti&e fear.

This fear" as noted" is often producti&e" and in the example abo&e" Roy illustrates

the psychic overcompensation that stems from the fear of being dispossessed< Fthe fear

thatH ould gi&e her to hairlines and both mouths.2 This is a iamese image of a body

possessed so much by the fear of dispossession, that a schizophrenic scenario ensues" in

hich psychic space is ceded to the fear of dispossession itself" gi&ing 8aby Jochamma

to hairlines and both her mouths.2

The only creature magical enough to escape this fear is" of course the 0hild ' but

this escape is paradoxical" of course" in its fleeting uni&ersality. That is to say" childhood

is a uni&ersal state intrinsic to humanity" yet it is only experienced temporarily" e&entually

fading into the &iolent nostalgia of retrospect. The orld of the +hild is salloed in

&isceral experience—a oy hich has no need to refer to itself—to e&en %no the

pleasure of un%noing it is experiencing. o the 9uestion ultimately becomes—hat is

real hereD The un%noing oy of pure experience" or the obser&ation and consciousness

of the %non and named experienceD hould e en&y those ignorant citizens ho exist

blissfully suspended in their in&isible republic" or is experience itself only real if it is

conscious experience — if it is recollected and incorporated into ubecti&e identityD *s the

$1



ensla&ement of &isceral reality to the orld of linguistic substitution necessary for

experience as e %no it to existD

The unswerving wisdom of +hildhood" hoe&er enlightened" e&entually gi&es

ay to adulthood—experience yields to language" and disorder struggles for ,rder—an

entropic in&ersion of sorts. This slipping into consciousness—the fortification of

ubectN,bect bifurcations—is an early ine&itability for the child" as it un%noingly

slips out of pre-uridical splendor and into the &iolent orld of ymbolic meaning and

&iolent dichotomies of di&ision and separation.

The mind of the child is paramount in this story' indeed it is the transcendent

6ualities of an unbiased mind" permeable ego" and li&ed experience—the lo&e and

experience of the small things and the now things—that is the third arena that Roy offers

the reader—a possibility that is whole in itself —small experiences" small control—not

finding sense, logic or fallacy cause and effect —no explanation or larger meanings—no

symbolic imperati&e or archi&al temptation' not the unfinished hell of 5elancholy or

Rage" and not the hopelessness of fatalistic self-destruction" but simply a #iss that

demands no #iss-bac#.

*nstead" Roy is suggesting feel this now" and control hat you may' do not let

poer in&ade your mind" it is a structural and hegemonic fallacy—a colonial game of

domination and subugation that ill only see% to reproduce 6istorically" as 5oths do.

*nstead" e are implored by the author to star&e out structures of oppression ith their

on illegitimacy and misrecognition.

There must be a time for The od of mall Things to reign—the instant moments

of oyous experience that eclipse the ymbolic (or the 6istoric) for uninhibited bliss<

momentary ignorance" happiness in a fit of laughter" or the moment of unspea%able

orgasm. Roy does not pretend" hoe&er" that these occasions of mindless oy someho

e&ade 6istory’s brutal taxation for long' on the contrary" the price for ahistorical bliss is

ubecti&e life as we #now it .

9 6ad he %non that he as about to enter a tunnel hose only egress as his on

annihilation" ould he ha&e turned aayD

$erhaps.$erhaps not.

=ho can tell (COO).

$$



This fatal transgression in this story—>elutha and Ammu as a single %not of

Touchable and ?ntouchable—costs >elutha his life. The moment of his murder is

narrated ith a tone of resignation and nonchalance" forcing the reader feel a sad sense of

sterilized ustice for the spectacle—li%e a family atching the execution of a con&icted

murderer" as if someho >elutha’s death ere necessary—noble e&en' nothing more than

a s9uaring of the boo%s.2 !i%e a soldier dying in ar" this is a necessary death—this as

a single life that threatened 6istory and ,rder itself, and" more importantly—threatened

the ymbolic sur&i&al of the collecti&e ideal that is the heart of society as such.

*n the actual physical moments hen imaginary transgression becomes bodily

pleasure—hen The od of mall Things ascends his fleeting throne—Roy deli&ers

perhaps the most illuminating line of the entire no&el< 8iology designed the dance.

Terror timed it2 (EC@). 8iology is the flesh and blood host of #esire—the primal" aching

%ind of #esire that re9uires no reason or ustifying narrati&e or logical rhythm. Terror"

hoe&er" is a choreographer" demanding 6istorical eight-counts" it maintains the step-

ball-change of #esire-$rohibition-$unishment that %eeps nations and generations in

horrifying loc%-step. This antagonism—8iology and Terror in Roy’s ords—is an

electrifying transformation of the traditional Lature &s. +ulture paradigm often explored

in 3eminist theory. Qet" instead of hiding ithin this totalizing dichotomy" Roy esches

bipolar opposition for a more liberating account of experience—the phenomenal orld of

little e&ents" ordinary things" smashed and reconstituted. *mbued ith ne meaning2

(E/).

This is the third arena that Roy is proposing—a brief escape from the struggle that

e&eryone seems to be facing—the struggle to someho return to a !acanian state of

preuridical jouissance" to a time hen the ,rdered orld didn’t impose its stipulations or

punishing cupboards—a time represented by the Tins and their prenatal camaraderie—

three un-cloudy trimesters for hich Ayemenem ould ne&er forgi&e them. *t is a orld

free of the demand for reciprocity or further explanation. *t is neither part nor hole" nor

anything beteen" but merely a small thing here" a small thing there—li&ed oy—the

unser&ing isdom of children' it’s a %iss on the belly<

FGH Rahel put her mouth on Ammu’s stomach and suc%ed at it" pulling the soft

flesh into her mouth and draing her head bac% to admire the shining o&al of spit

and the faint red imprint of her teeth on her mother’s s%in.

$!



Ammu ondered at the transparency of that %iss. *t as a clear-as-glass %iss.

?nclouded by passion or desire—that pair of dogs that sleep so soundly inside

children" aiting for them to gro up. *t as a %iss that demanded no %iss-bac%.

Lot a cloudy %iss full of 9uestions that anted ansers (/CC).

This is an ominous indictment of the ,rdered" reciprocal orld of Adult patterns and prohibitions that aaits e&ery child. 3or Roy" there is a canine heart ithin the human

head" a groling presence that bar%s ith #esire and $assion" holing children into

Adulthood" and trading small things in for big things—for better or for =orse. There are

a fe critical moments throughout the no&el hen Roy exposes the slip into the Adult

orld" and the slip out of the orld of +hildren. The most apocalyptic example comes" of

course" ith the death of >elutha and the subse9uent transformation of ;stha and Rahel

into !o&e !a-abiding +itizens<

The *nspector as%ed his 9uestion. ;stha’s mouth said Qes.

+hildhood tiptoed out.

ilence slid in li%e a bolt.omeone sitched off the light and >elutha disappeared (E0E).

The banishment of +hildhood in this passage couldn’t be more tragically &i&id" and helps

to illustrate the parallels of 6istory and the !o&e !as in direct opposition to the

transcendental third arena that is expressed here as the unser&ing isdom of children

(/01).2

The death of ophie 5ol is an innocent one" hastened only" perhaps" by the orld

of +hildren constantly threatened ith Adult cupboards" endless punishments" and

unexpected 5oths. ophie 5ol’s ne Absence" along ith the coalescence of >elutha

and Ammu" ould be the stic% in the spo%e of the 5eaning 5achine that ould cause it

to crumble.C0 The only ay to repair that machine" the Tins ould soon come to learn" is

to play the game Adult game ith its tisted umpire (6istory) and its inded regulations

(The !o&e !as).

10 The machine draing began to blur. The clear lines to smudge. The instructions nolonger made sense. The road rose to meet him and the dar%ness gre dense.

lutinous. $ushing through it became an effort. !i%e simming underater.

*t’s happening" a &oice informed him. *t has begun.

6is mind" suddenly impossibly old" floated out of his body and ho&ered high abo&e him

in the air" from here it abbered useless arnings (/@0).

$%



*t is often difficult to peer through the collecti&e and endless trauma that

characterizes this story" and it almost feels blasphemous on some le&el to try and ma%e

any sense of the suffering" but there is one thing that Roy insists the reader surrender< the

8ig Things—that is" the grand narrati&e that 6istory dictates" the deity of the ymbolic"

the transgression of ocial regulations—all of these things are only escaped (if e&en

temporarily) in the small things" the timeless things—the things that aren’t forced to

ma%e sense—the experience of things" not the recollection of that experiences' it is the

orderless orld of the +hild—a more authentic state of jouissance that can only be

pee%ed at as an Adult. *t is an inherently incestuous state characterized by its unconscious

holeness and its irre&erent disregard for selfNother di&isions. Roy’s third arena e&ades

all of this in its mystical transcendence of the shameful subecti&ity that social existence

dictates. The third arena is o&erfloing ith unabashed e9uilibrium.

*t feels then" almost treasonous to try and continually dra the parallels beteen

Roy’s mystical and transcendental storytelling" and the rigid theoretical or% of 3eminist"

$sychoanalytic" or 4ueer canons. The egotistical game of exploring connections beteen

Roy’s literary escape and the figure-it-out orld of theoretical criti9ue becomes tri&ial at

some point" as it seems to ignore the &ery essence of the isdom Roy imparts throughout

her or%.

*n this case" perhaps the mission is flaed from the beginning. There is" hoe&er"

something 9uite re&elatory that lies beteen the distinct orld of this author and these

theorists—it is a humane o&erlap that" hen released from the bonds of opposition and

meaning-ma%ing" bridges the gap beteen experience and understanding—life and the

mind— me and you. This" in the end" seems to be the only ostensible conclusion * am able

to offer ith any re&erence for the type of meaningless and fleeting liberation that Roy is

promoting.

$&

better to have love & have laws: a psychic rapprochement of subjectivity & symbolic...

Documents