In class yesterday, Dr. Tiff discussed the role of subalterns in the novel. I thought that it was interesting that throughout the novel, the main action was taken through these subalterns.
This discussion of subalterns made me think of another type of character analysis: the character archetypes. Archetypes are the "original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all." (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype). In The Calcutta Chromosome, none of the characters seem to take on the complete traits of any one archetype. Why is this? Could this have anything to do with why Ghosh uses mainly subaltern characters?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Very interesting critical observation. I think that the other characters create a very interesting array of views for the story more than a archetype. It is sort of like the movie Vantage point. Every character has a different angle but when they are put together it all becomes clear what is going on. Except in the book it leaves you hanging at the end( :( ) . However I could see how one could make an argument for your observation. But I don't see it that way. It is actually quite intertesing though to see what other people are saying about the book. I did a quick google search about analysis of the book and reviews and their are a wide variety of views.
ReplyDeleteI think that because he wanted to make the novel a realistic depiction of the future, he didn't model his character after a "perfect" person, since everyone has his or her own faults and is different from other people.
ReplyDelete_________________
I think that for simplicity most of society can be described as regular people and lower class people. Since society is divided in mainly two sides, this may be why the author calls everyone in the novel by their name (regular people) or says that they are subalterns.
I think the author purposely did this because he was trying to portray the future using regular people. He wanted to point out that there is no one archetype. Society is mainly comprised of "regular people" and few scientists. Depicting a highly scientific world would leave out the majority of the population. In the end, all of the seemingly random stories come together to create a depiction of the future.
ReplyDelete