ELSA online Meet at 4.30 P.M. on Sunday, 31st July, 2022
My Favourite Nobel Laureate in Literature
.png)
.png)
On
31st July 2022 ELSA members met online to discuss their favourite Nobel prize
winners from the field of literature. It was an opportunity to explore in depth
the contribution made by the Nobel laureate, spanning across more that twelve
decades and across the continents, to the world in terms of enriching the
culture, voicing the concerns of the neglected and delving into human bahaviour
with all its complexities. Prof. Nibir K Ghosh began the meet by reminding how
the inventor of dynamite and a scientist, Alfred Nobel, had included literature
as a field to be awarded along with peace, sciences and economics.
The
youngest member of ELSA, Mrigakshi Singh made a case for Bill Watterson, the
creator of comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, who, according to her, should have
been given a Nobel for the life enriching philosophy served with simplicity and
humour. Dr Manju brought forth the universal pessimist but a cosmic optimist
side of William Golding whose work Lord
of the Flies depicts the inevitable fate of our world as a consequence of
the relentless savagery. Saurabh Agarwal talked about the Humanist aspect of
Saul Bellow’s Herzog. Bellow was
awarded the prize for "for the human understanding and subtle analysis of
contemporary culture that are combined in his work."
Dr
Nibir K Ghosh’s impression about T.S. Eliot starting from his early days in the
field of education and the way he has left an effect on him was highlighted in
his presentation titled “Many dimensions of T. S. Eliot.” He mentioned how T.S
Eliot has been a major influence on several poets and writers of his times and
till date his remains unsurpassed. Whether it be his poetry, criticism, essays
or plays his modernist writing had opened a new chapter in literature for which
he won the Nobel in 1948. Dr G.L. Gautam brought focus on the travel writings
of V.S. Naipaul. He tried to remove the misconceptions that arise out of the
title Area of Darkness. Debasish
Chakraborty’s presentation on Rabindranath Tagore talked of his multifaced
personality, his humility, his own brand of nationalism and the literature that
touches every aspect of life. John Galsworthy and George Bernard Shaw, the
British playwriters, were taken up by Dr Chanda Singh and Dr Anjali Singh
respectively. Dr Chanda mentioned how Galsworthy’s play Justice was instrumental in ushering in prison reforms in England.
Shaw’s contribution to literature and the undiminishing relevance of the
characters he created was talked about by Dr Anjali. Jessica Joel’s
presentation “The inheritance of Subjection in The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison” delved on the subject how the
colour of skin becomes reason for hatred and dejection for the protagonist
Pecola Breedlove. The meeting was attended by Dr Santosh Singh, Dr Deena
Padayachee from South Africa, Dr Roopali Khanna, Mrs. Shrabani Roy
Choudhury. –Report by Saurabh Agarwal
My Favourite Nobel Laureate in Literature
July
31st, 2022: It was time for yet, another of our illuminating session
– My favourite Nobel Laureate in Literature.
As
always, our guiding light, Prof Nibir Ghosh started the meet by giving a little
background about Alfred Nobel and his connection to Literature. Throwing light
on the lesser known aspect of the Swedish icon, Dr Ghosh shared that Nobel was
himself a great passionate follower of literature who wrote novels and plays;
and who believed that literature could be an instrument of change. Thus, the
inclusion in the Nobel Prize subjects!
Mrigakshi,
aged ten years, our youngest participant was invited to speak first. She spoke
about her own favourite Bill Watterson, the American Cartoonist who created
‘Calvin & Hobbes’. Dwelling on him she believed she would award the Nobel
to him if she had the power to do so and questioned that if a lyricist could be
awarded the Nobel Prize, why not a Cartoonist!
Next
was Dr Manju who brought up her favourite Nobel Laureate, titled ‘William Golding: A Universal
Pessimist but a Cosmic Optimist’. She chose him because he was a ‘walking
talking contradiction’ who had a complex personality. By presenting him, she
intended to learn more about him.
Saurabh Agarwal our next speaker
shared an interesting presentation titled ‘Knowing Saul Bellow through his
masterly creation Herzog’. The Nobel
citation of the Jewish immigrant-American stated the two broad parameters on
which he was judged – human understanding & Contempory culture, both of
which have been aptly highlighted in Herzog.
The next speaker was Prof Ghosh
himself. He expressed a dilemma in choosing a favourite from a list of ‘favorites’.
He finally settled on an author who had been instrumental in shaping his own
poetic sensibilities, the title being ‘Many Dimensions of T.S. Eliot’.
Dr G L Gautam, the next speaker
chose V S Naipaul, the Indian whose perception of India was not well received. Preferring
to highlight the author’s travelogues over his creative works, Dr. Gautam clarified
Naipaul’s expression of ‘Area of Darkness’, illuminating us with its deeper concept,
titled ‘India and V.S. Naipaul's books about India’.
Next, Dr Debashish Chakraborty was
invited to share his observations. Unable to resist the temptation of speaking
about anybody but Rabindranath Tagore, Dr Chakraborty shared how the author had
been looming large on his life during his ‘happy and not so happy moments’,
including the times when the ex-ISRO Scientist went into a musical mode.
Anjali Singh Chauhan, the next
speaker, shared a similar dilemma as Dr Ghosh, and was able to select George
Bernard Shaw for her presentation. End of it, Prof Ghosh added that Shaw was
one of those playwrights who was able to blend idea and reality which are
relevant not only for the time when he existed, but even today; through St Joan, Shaw highlights the idea that
individual voice has no chance against the established rule and power.
Our next speaker, Dr Chanda Singh shared
her observation on John Galsworthy, the writer who through his writings voiced
the marginalised and their miseries that were often in conflict with the
Victorian morals. Without any sarcasm or terming the characters’ a monster, he
was able to stir the consciousness of the people that in particular disturbed
the upper class; ultimately leading to reforms.
Jessica Joel was our last speaker
who brought our attention to much loved Toni Morrison. Presenting it
beautifully, she shared a detailed description of the work The Bluest Eye. Prof Ghosh shared on the first Afro-American female
writer whose courageous portrayals ‘without the blue eyes’ made her the
‘Blue-eyed’ icon for the Afro-American writers and many others.
Having reached the end of our meet,
Prof Ghosh thanked everybody for their presentation and participation including
Mukesh Vyas, Dr. Roopali Khanna, Mrs. Shrabani Roychoudhury and the Medical
specialist Dr. Deena Padayachee from South Africa. – Report by Anjali Singh
Chauhan
My Favourite Nobel Laureate: Bill Watterson
Mrigakshi Singh
My favourite Nobel Laureate is…………. here it comes: Bill Watterson! Surprised? Maybe because he is not on the ‘Nobel-iests’ list or on the web? Well, I was talking about my list!
For
those who are not familiar with Bill Watterson, he is the creator of the world
famous comic, Calvin
and Hobbes. Watterson is now well above 60 years old, and lives
in Cleveland where he has now retired as a cartoonist and has taken up
painting. I should also mention that Calvin and Hobbes are inspired from another
world famous comic, Peanuts. Since I was 6, I always have loved
both, Calvin
and Hobbes, and their unnecessary arguments. Calvin is a hyperactive,
mischievous, and adventurous 6 years old. Hobbes, On the other hand, is a stuffed tiger
which Calvin
imagines to be a live tiger. Hobbes unusually, seems to know everything and
always startles Calvin
with his ‘tiger attacks’. There are various other characters I like, for
example, Susie,
an independent girl who always makes the plans made by Calvin to soak her in water balloons,
backfire. I have always identified myself with a little bit of all the
characters. Although Bill Watterson isn’t a ‘Nobel Laureate’, if I were to give
a noble prize, I would give to him as I think it’s high time they should start
giving out noble prizes to cartoonists as I believe that 90% of the world loves
comics.
THANK YOU
Ernest Hemingway: My Favourite Nobel Laureate in Literature
Mukesh Vyas
Hemingway won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1954 for his outstanding masterpiece novella – The Oldman and The Sea. The Nobel committee in its citation said “The Nobel prize in literature 1954 was awarded to Ernest Miller Hemingway, for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in the The Oldman and The Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style” (MLA Style: The Nobel prize in literature 1954)
His works: Between 1925 and 1929, Hemingway wrote some of his major works. They are – In our Time (1924), The Sun Also Rises (1926) and A Farewell to Arms (1929). Hemingway’s work explores love, war, wilderness and loss. His succinct and lucid pros had a powerful influence on 20th century fiction.
Hemingway, after receiving Nobel prize said, “I am very pleased and very proud to receive the Nobel prize for literature” - At his home near Havana. He was not able to go to Stockholm Dec 10th, to receive the award because of injuries he suffered in two plane crashes in Africa. (The New York Times, Oct 29, 1954)
As Hemingway did not go to Stockholm to receive his Nobel prize, he sent his banquet speech to be read by John M. Cabot, United States Ambassador to Sweden (December 10, 1954). It is a long speech, so I would like to read some of the parts of speech. “Writing at its best, is a lonely life... For a true writer, each book should be a new beginning, where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck he will succeed.” (From Nobel lectures, literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1969)
The Oldman and The Sea (1952) is the novella that won him a Nobel prize for literature. The germ of this novella lies in an Essay titled “On the blue water: A Gulf Stream Letter” published in 1936 in Esquire Magazine. We find a paragraph about an old man who went for fishing alone in a skiff far out at sea landed a huge Marlin, and then lost much of it to sharks. Then in 1939 in Cuba, Hemingway began planning an expansion of this kernel into a fully developed story that would become part of a larger volume. Early in 1951, Hemingway finally began writing The Oldman and The Sea at his home, near Havana.
Story in brief: The central character is Cuban fisherman named Santiago. He has not caught a fish for 84 days. He is “Salao” - an Unlucky man. His assistant is a boy named Manolin. Manolin’s father forced the boy to leave the old fisherman as he was ‘unlucky’. Though Manolin continues to support Santiago with food and bast. Santiago takes his skiff far out into the deep waters of the gulf stream. There, he soon hooks a giant fish Marlin. He struggles with the fish for three days. Santiago finally, reels the Marlin in and lashes it to a boat. Santiago’s exhaustive effort goes for naught. Sharks are drawn to the tethered Marlin and, although Santiago manages to kill a few, the shark eat the fish. Its skeleton is only left. After returning to the harbour, the discouraged Santiago goes to his home to sleep. In the meantime, the visitors see the skeleton tied to his boat and are amazed. Manolin is relived to find Santiago alive.
The two agree to go fishing together.
Hemingway in this work has created a masterpiece through the character of Santiago. Through his struggle, Santiago demonstrates the ability of human spirits to endure hardship and suffering in order to win. It is also his deep love and knowledge of the sea that allows him to prevail.
Some of the
quotations of the novella are famous.
1) “Everything
about him was old except his eyes, and they were the same colour as the sea and
were cheerful and undefeated” - (Page 1)
2) “I may not be as strong as I think, but I know many tricks and I have resolution”- (Page 8)
3) “But man is not made for defeat...A man can be destroyed but not be defeated” - (Page 38)
What I learn from Hemingway:
(i) Enjoy the simple things in life, don’t rush. Take pleasure in each and every journey in your life and learn from them.
(ii)
Listen to others, when people talk, listen
completely. Most people never listen.
I wish to conclude my talk with the following lines from H. S. Nyberg’s speech – Member of the Swedish academy “The human problems which he has treated are relevant to all of us, living as we do in the confused conditions of modern life; and few authors have exercised such a wide influence on contemporary literature in all countries” (From Nobel lectures, literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1969).
References: - The Old Man and The Sea, 1952 – Norton Publications.
- The New
York Times, Oct
29, 1954
- Nobel
lectures, literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Co.,
Amsterdam, 1969
Prof. Mukesh Vyas (Retd.), Gandhinagar. Ex-Principal, Govt. Science College, Zalod (Gujarat University)
.png)
My Favourite Nobel Laureate: T. S. Eliot
Nibir K. Ghosh
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1948 was awarded to Thomas Stearns Eliot "for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry."
Anders Österling, a Swedish poet and writer and Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, in his introductory speech, remarked on Eliot’s capacity ‘to cut into the consciousness of our generation with the sharpness of a diamond,’ and his ability for ‘stimulating a reconsideration of pressing questions… with the gift of a master for finding the apt wording, both in the language of poetry and in the defence of ideas in essay form’.
In January 1948, T. S. Eliot was awarded the Order of Merit; in a letter congratulating him, W. H. Auden remarked ‘Now the next thing shall be the Nobel Prize’. Auden’s foretelling came true some months later when Eliot was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature on 4th November 1948.
My initiation into T. S. Eliot began as a student of M.A. English. Later my interest was intensified when I had the opportunity to share Eliot with my students, especially works like “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, “Journey of the Magi,” Tradition and Individual Talent and Murder in the Cathedral.
What impressed me most about Eliot was his superb ability to combine non-Poetic Idiom and imagery in depicting the disillusionment of the times:
Let us go then you and I
When the evening is
spread out against the sky
Like a patient
etherised upon a table.
...
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.
...
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.
...
‘I
have measured out my life with coffee spoons’ ...
There will be time,
there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet.
I was no less taken in by Eliot’s
expertise in presenting language in new form:
The endless cycle of idea and action
Endless experiment,
endless invention
Gives us knowledge
of motion but not of stillness
Knowledge of speech
but not of silence.
He rightly averred, “Genuine
poetry can communicate before it is understood.” With amazing precision, economy,
discipline he succeeded in communicating his views in the use of language.
In his essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, Eliot gave a completely new meaning to a sense of tradition unlike the notion of blind adherence to the past. He saw Tradition as both continuity and change, as a living organism like a river ever-flowing and not stagnant: “Last year's words belong to last year's language/ Next year's words await another voice.” And again, “The end and the beginning are always there/ Before the beginning and after the end.”
Escape from personality: Using the Platinum wire analogy, Eliot expressed how supreme objectivity could be displayed even when a poem was essentially subjective.
Eliot was deeply religious but not dogmatic. He possessed the cosmopolitan outlook that could see Western religion with Oriental philosophy, Buddhism, Christianity, Greek Mythology etc. Lord Krishna’s advice in the Gita relating to the idea of involved action with a spirit of detachment can be seen in just two lines:
“Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still.”
In spite of ideational complexity stemming from mixing memory and desire, as one notices in poems like the Wasteland, Eliot exhibits his ability to combine intelligence, wit and humour in his utterances: “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.”
His play, Murder in the Cathedral reveals Eliot’s grasp on the ambivalence of power-friendship equation that he puts forth through the characters of Thomas Beckett and King Henry. Caught between extremes, Beckett understands that “The last temptation is the greatest treason/ To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”
Finally, I admire Eliot for his inspirational message to humanity: “To do the useful thing, to say the courageous thing, to contemplate the beautiful thing: that is enough for one man's life.”
Nibir K. Ghosh is Chief Editor, RE-MARKINGS, www.re-markings.com
.png)
My Favourite Nobel Laureate: George Bernard Shaw
Anjali Singh Chauhan
Starting with a quote from the Award
Ceremony Speech by the Chairman of the Nobel Prize committee on 10th
Dec. 1926,
“…What
puzzled people most was his rollicking gaiety: they were ready to believe that
the whole thing was a game and a desire to startle. This was so far from being
true that he himself has been able to declare with a greater justice that his
careless attitude was a mere stratagem: he had to fool people into laughing so
they should not hit upon the idea of hanging him. But we know very well that he
would hardly have been frightened out of his outspokenness by anything that
might have happened, and that he chose his weapons just as much because they
suited him as because they were the most effective. He wielded them with the
certitude of genius, which rested on an absolutely quiet conscience and on a
faithful conviction…”
Yes,
it is George Bernard Shaw being talked about here and he is my favourite Nobel
Laureate. Why? Because he is my favourite all time writer, that’s why!
Shaw’s
early life speaks about his misfortunes on the ‘perfect family’ front.
Moreover, there is no indication or remote mention of him taking up writing.
Writing happened to him, by chance. Probably, he was destined for it. His
initial writings were anything but remarkable. Candida, brought him big success (read ‘recognition’) and Arms and the Man, the financial success. Man and
Superman catapulted him further against gravity. Pygmalion got him the Oscars. He was a winner of the 1925 Nobel Prize as a
septuagenarian for his play Saint Joan, the only tragedy among the
comedies that he had written.
I
would like to dwell a bit on Arms and the
Man, my favourite of all his plays. I first read it when it was prescribes
in our academic curriculum in the school. Being a teenager, I too identified
with Raina, its heroine and wondered about the character of Captain Bluntschli.
It was much later in life that I was able to understand the Captain and the
dilution of any romantic notions of the war. To think of how remarkably Shaw
was able to create something he had no experience of, even though he existed
during the Boer wars and the First World War timeline. In the contempory times,
this play holds its place as it echoes the same message it did when it first
appeared.
Michael
Holroyd the biographer who wrote Bernard Shaw described the Nobel
Laureate as being skeptical about awards. Quoting Shaw on this, “They eat up
money; elicit a lot of trash; and invariably go to some second best composition.”
Initially, he had refused the Nobel Prize that was received by the British
Ambassador on Shaw’s behalf. Angry at the cash award with the Nobel because its
announcement led to the barrage of letters from thousands of people writing to
Shaw requesting odd financial aid, Shaw explained that he was financially
secure to meet his needs and wants. Winning the cash that came with a literary
award was similar to throwing a life belt to a swimmer who had already reached
the shore safely. He requested the Swedish academy to redirect the cash award
to the translation of Swedish writings to English. This being un-met, he was
forced to accept the money and directing it personally to the translation
venture.
I
like Shaw for his humorous take on some of life’s most serious issues. This
ability to make me laugh and yet drive home a point, and continue to do it
consistently throughout his career makes him a unique writer and my favourite
too. I would like to end on the following note:
Though
there are plenty of humorous anecdotes relating to him, quoting one of these. At
the end of one letter to his biographer, the best part of 50 pages long, Shaw
apologised: "Forgive this long letter. I didn't have time to write a short
one."
Anjali Singh Chauhan, (Research Scholar),
My Favourite
Nobel Laureate in Literature: V. S. Naipaul
G. L. Gautam
.png)
A thunderous applause befitting a
hero that Naipaul received in the afternoon warmth of January during the 2015
Jaipur Literature Festival still stays
on mind like a fresh event of epochal significance. The huge gathering is still
fresh in mind like a pleasant dream.The number was manageable though, yet the
seats arranged before the dais fell short of the audience with eager eyes
impatient to catch a glimpse of the world-famous author.So the number of the
people who were happy to find room alongside the three sides of seats was no
less than that had occupied the seats. For me, nevertheless, the stage was an
unhappy sight. To my anxiety, V.S. Naipaul was carried up stage in a wheelchair
by a comparatively young woman with pretty looks. Down the memory lane, V.S.
Naipaul's frank admission how writing much taxed him, made in a visit to India
following the award of a Nobel in 2001 flashed. To my satisfaction, a glow
spread across his forehead and a writer like beard he still donned was easy to
link up to unforgettable look.
The audience were in the whirlwind
of emotions as soon a he settled down on the stage, Naipaul Nobel prize winner
novel, A House For Mr Biswas, was on the agenda for discussion. A big
round of clapping and greeting took time to quieten. On the stage was Amit
Chaudhuri to formally introduce the world-known author. A Sahitya Akademy
winner novelist of international repute and essayist, Prof. Amit glowed with
light on the stage in the presence of Naipaul. Amit who teaches Contemporary
literature at the University of East Anglia in UK, in profound gratefulness,
betrayed on his face, acknowledged to the audience how A House For Mr Biswas
stood strongly behind us in our struggle to make it to a writing career. The
book was like a warm hand of an elderly person.
On the occasion were present many
of the British critics of Naipaul who were happy to rate the book a funny one
in one voice in the trend of the nineteenth century novel. Many of the audience
came up with questions about what the critics meant by a funny book. Sir Vidia
in warm gratefulness would pronounce thank you to his scholars. The heat the
discussion generated is yet to quieten. What we hear is sharp sound. It
travelled to all from the first row. Later I found it was a legendary lawyer
who wanted to plead how India had never been an area of darkness and that India
was an area of light. This comment would transport Naipaul to the early years
when he had done two books about India: An Area of Darkness and A
Wounded Civilization. When it came to writing his third book, A Million
Mutinies Now, he would recall to the audience how he would insist on his
mother what more she could tell him about the land of his ancestors since he
still knew little. Absorbed as he would be to calling to his mind the days gone
by. A woman's voice in chaste Hindi became a centre of glare weaning away all
eyes from Sir Vidia. It was the same attractive woman who had helped Sir Vidia
to go upstage in a wheelchair. With her broad face and big eyes and a
remarkable nose, she looked one from Punjab. She did not have to intone the
natural expression she commanded in Hindi. Later I found that she was lady
Nadira who was a journalist in Pakistan before she was married to Sir Vidia in
1996.
Lady Nadira in intimate accent in
Hindi shared with the audience what Sir Vidia's mother affectionately would
call him, beta, which would mean dear son. She quoted Sir Vidia's mother
telling him, 'beta Indians ko Indians pr chhodh de.' Why bother, leave Indians
to Indians themselves. In his innocence, Sir Vidia demanded to know if she was
angry. After he saw lady Nadira was in the audience, he was visibly upset. Lady Nadira was immediately called to the
stage.
Dr. G. L. Gautam, former Head, Department of English, Lajpat Rai College, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad is a bilingual poet and translator.
Letter by Nibir K. Ghosh to Pritish Nandy, Editor, Illustrated Weekly of India on Naipaul's Special section.
William Golding: A Universal Pessimist but a Cosmic
Optimist
Manju
William Golding received Nobel Prize for
literature in 1983. He is known as
a man of complex personality. He is a pessimist who
seems to talk about hopelessness in the world but his pessimism generates positivity
like existentialism does. Myth of Sisyphus, a philosophical essay by Albert Camus is the best example of
existentialism portraying Sisyphus rolling a rock up to the top of a mountain,
only to have the rock roll back down to the bottom every time he reaches the
top. It reflects utter hopelessness. But the same pessimistic portrayal
displays highest degree of optimism by not putting the boulder down despite
hopelessness. Golding’s
pessimism too generates positive ideas like the sun which rises from the dark
womb of the night. It is said that an optimist contributes by making an airplane
and a pessimist does so by making parachutes. There are certain core
values which are lurking in Golding’s writings. Once
he said in one of his interviews "critics dug into my books until they
could come up with something satisfactorily hopeless. I can't think why I don't
feel hopeless myself.”
During a critical interrogation
he called himself a universal pessimist but a cosmic optimist. He explains the
universe (something) which the scientists construct with the help of a set of
rules which stipulate that their construct must be repeatable and identical. In
this case he addresses himself as a pessimist and bows down before the great
God’s entropy. He is an optimist
whenever he is related to the spiritual dimension which the scientist
discipline forces him to ignore. Since his youth to his adolescence, his behaviour is seen to be quite cruel.
Golding was from a well
educated family and had high aspirations for his future. Ambitious Golding
started writing at the age of 7 and wrote his first novel at the age of 12. His
works were based on his personal experiences as a school teacher. He was once
described as “a wrong person to be a teacher” by one of his students.
William Golding is
believed to have "an unexpected and even contentious choice." Despite his turbulent time in the navy where he
spent six years, he was able to form positive relationships. The complexities
of the man reveal themselves through a study of the themes that he covers
in his Lord of the Flies. He
says “25 years ago I accepted the label pessimist thoughtlessly without
realizing that it was going to be tied to my personality.”
Dr Manju is Professor
of English at Chandigarh University, Punjab
.png)
.png)
Inheritance
of Abjection in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye
Jessica
Joel
When
we read African American authors we often see that the enslaved and abused African
Americans or the coloured people who, by being propelled out of their natural habitat,
have undergone significant identity changes through converting or conforming to
the standards of western civility, and have resorted to unintentional mimicry,
resulting in becoming part colonizer and part colonized in their attitude and
behaviour and hence creating a generation of psychotics.
Pauline
Breedlove, the mother of Pecola the protagonist in The Bluest Eye was
birthed and nurtured into the idea of ‘white is beautiful’ till there was no
fibre of reasoning left in her to not choose to wear the lush cloak of ugliness
whose lushness was as deep as the hatred for the inherited melanin they
carried, and thus she remained in a state of abjection and had ‘othered’
herself from her true self by finding comfort in believing her ugliness, and
thus wearing the lush cloak of ugliness. In the process of loving white beauty
and abhorring her own black skin, Pauline had rejected the black ugliness of
her daughter the moment she was born, she had separated herself with Pecola all
physically, emotionally and mentally when the umbilical cord was cut. This
relationship of Pecola with Pauline was the foundation of Pecola’s primal
abjection with self. There’s an incident where an 11 year old Pecola goes to
the Fisher’s House, the white family, where her mother works to pick the
laundry. Pecola happens to accidently drop the berry cobbler (a pie) on the
floor; Pauline in a rage thrashes the living lights out of Pecola, but composes
herself and caresses the startled pink and yellow Fisher baby. This is where
Pecola realizes the diversion of her mother’s love, protection and comfort to a
‘beautiful white’ baby, leading Pecola to not only feel the singes of
self-abhorrence but accept and live it. Needless to say, Pauline was so filled
to the brim with abjection that she not only forced her daughter into a state
of abjection even before she was born, but passed on this mantle of abjection
laced with ‘otherness’ as a treasure of inheritance to her daughter.
Cholly
Breedlove the dipsomaniac and licentious father who had torched their house to
flames, and raped his daughter twice, is like an exotic fruit with bitterness
of abandonment, with sharp tanginess of racial assault and over ripened
putridness of abjection. This is the epitome of abjection in Pecola’s life. She’s
not only shrouded in her lush cloak of ugliness, but actually disappears in the
shroud outside the human contact. The little light of life inside of her is
only lit with abjection, repugnance and the existence that comes from ‘otherness.
The foundation for abjection that Pauline laid in the life of Pecola was built
into a tower by Cholly and painted with otherness.
A
white blond doll, with blue eyes, yellow hair and pink skin is a treasured
Christmas present for every girl. Ground as a seed under the mortar’s torment,
Pecola wishes for a physical transformation for it had occurred to her that if
those eyes were different, she herself would be different and beautiful, maybe
her mother would caress her like she did the Fisher girl and her parents won’t
be hateful and unkind to the pretty eyed Pecola. The psychotic transfer of
abjection from Pauline and its epitome to which Cholly assaulted Pecola into,
led her into comfort for existence to an othered image and a love for a pseudo
object - the bluest eyes. This Pseudo object is her
almighty ‘other’, from where she grapples to extract her existence.
Pecola
in order to fulfil her aspiration of her mad delirium, meets a pishogue named
the Soaphead Church who’s fully convinced that black people would be better off
if they were more like white people and thus grants her the miracle of the
bluest eyes, cobalt like blue which none other than she can see.
.png)
Conclusion
Now, Pecola’s psychotic delirium is the response of the state of abjection she’s inherited, the self-abhorrence she’s so meticulously learnt and the trauma of the rape ordeal. Her bluest eye delirium is her future which promises that the cycle of abjection, the self-destructive process of othering each other, the solace in psychotic delirium is not going to end with Pecola, but is going to be manifested in more destructive ways when she births her children into them.- Jessica Joel, PG Student
