Lahiri and Culture

One of the strengths of Lahiri's "Interpreter of Maladies" is that the American/Indian cultures are presented as multi-faceted, or as things that "cut both ways". In "Mrs. Sen's", for example, the cultures are presented quite ambivalently. It is the facet of traditional, patriarchal marriage that forces Mrs. Sen to a new country where she seems quite alone and somewhat melancholy (her mumblings and the way she zealously reads and rereads the letters from back home indicates this). However, this traditional marriage structure also provides the warm and loving home for Elliot to be exposed to. Mrs. Sen's home is presented very positively, especially compared to Elliot's home life. The freedom of American marriages, the lack of historical grit holding outdated cultural practices in place, leaves Elliot's mother and father free to divorce with relative ease (it seems inconceivable for such a situation to arise in the Sen household). However, this same freedom doesn't allow Elliot's mother to provide the warm loving household that the Sens can. She is tired and overworked from being a single parent, smoking cigarettes and drinking wine to unwind, unable to provide that same warmth and love for Elliot.

In "The Treatment of Bibi Haldar" and "A Real Durwan", our stories protagonists (sort of hermetic old ladies) are situated in an urban context far removed from the suburban context of stories like "Mrs. Sen's" and "When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine". Whereas the urban Indian context is shown as a tighter, closer-knit community that has the benefits of constant financial and emotional support, it is also shown as prattling and unstable. It's hard to imagine anyone really caring much about Bibi in the United States, but then again it's hard to imagine Mr. Pirzada's kids being threatened by war violence in the United States either.

By treating cultures in this way, Lahiri is able to do a lot of work as once. One culture isn't a foil for the other--they are both foils for each other.

Of course, Interpreter of Maladies is still a fiction collection, and shouldn't be treated as an anthropological article or fully realized cultural study (that you might find in an academic journal or such). But by injecting some of these elements into her story, she makes the fiction much more real and relevant.

welcome to the machine

Welcome my son,
Welcome, to the Machine.
Where have you been?
That's all right we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time
Provided with toys and scrounging for boys.

Welcome my Son
Welcome, to the Machine
What did you dream?
That's all right we told you what to dream.


George Saunders' short story Jon is a refreshing attack on Corporate commercialism. It is primarily effective due to the structure of it's prose/narrative: It's told from the perspective of a cog (Jon), who speaks in a somewhat disjunct dialect filled with references to specific commercials. Instead of using a super omniscient voice that is able to comment on various aspects of "The Man" from a distant point of safety, the story is told by someone with a limited perspective and whose personal well being is very much tied to the system he is describing.

Though it is a refreshing read, I'm not sure how effective the story was in attacking corporate commercialism. That might be okay, because I don't think that's the only thing the story is trying to do. But it is worth noting how the story may fall short.

The reason that I don't think Jon works very well as a satire (=using exaggeration to bring certain vices to light) is because the story is almost too exaggerated. The story begins to transcend into science fiction, and this leaves less of an impact on me, because I don't feel as threatened by a world that's so different, even if that exaggeration is only being used to say something very real about our current world. I don't have chips in my head, I can go out and examine the flowers whenever I want to, I speak pretty good English. I don't really relate to Jon. Maybe that's because the Man is doing his job--if he's doing his job, I shouldn't relate to Jon, should I?--, but that can't be assumed. Assuming I don't relate to Jon because I'm in a situation similar to Jon (having the wool pulled over my eyes, so to speak) because it fits a fun narrative is bordering on paranoia.

I think Jon does do some very good things though. I think it is very funny... the prose style really lends itself to humor, and there were times that I was legitimately laughing at things Jon would say, comparisons to commercials he would make, etc. Jon also functions as a good, if somewhat predictable love story. It was interesting to see the classic "free-bird" dynamic (girl/guy "x" values the relationship but values freedom more, and ultimately has to leave even though it pains them, to chase a future somewhere else) played out in this unique setting. I also really liked the whole moral/philosophical delima... is it moral to have the baby grow up "outside", where he will be more free but also at a material risk? Or vice versa?

Finally, as I mentioned at the beginning, the story does the best thing a story can do: It's interesting. It was a breeze to read, it sucked you along. It might not leave the biggest emotional impact on me, but it was a fun read that still brought up plenty of thought-provoking questions. And that's something.