By Friday, please finish The Namesake and complete your final journal. You might want to focus on theme for this journal. You only need to do ONE journal (not one per chapter).
In addition, please get your progress report signed, as well as the parent letter (if you haven't already).
Finally, for extra credit (must post before class on Friday): Read this review of The Namesake by David Kipen in San Francisco Chronicle and leave an insightful comment on this post. Do you agree with Kipen's assessment? Which parts resonated with you or made you disagree? 10 ec points.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/14/RV304196.DTL&ao=all
Kipen's assessment of the novel was fairly accurate, I especially agreed with his point about how midway through the novel Gogol's behaviour became repetitive and neurotic as he failed to add any sort of meaning into his life. The connection between the diction and the larger themes of the novel was also well examined. I thought that the analysis of his two names was somewhat bizarre and superficial, and I don't agree that he hated the name Nikhil because he was used to hearing "Gogol."
ReplyDeleteKipen’s interpretation of the importance of ones name and identity to the novel is most accurate. In particular, the comments regarding Gogol’s name, lost forever between India and America, resonate strongly with aspects of the novels overall focus on identity and the life long process of assimilation. Kipen’s focus on diction is strongly supported by the work, as diction is often the defining aspect of Lahiri’s maze of long and highly descriptive sentences. Kipen’s focus on diction helps to emulate diction’s impact on the novel as a whole, often adding emphasis to the image filled sentences, which become a trademark of Lahiri’s unique style. As Mr. Witter pointed out, it does seem that Kipen’s analysis of Gogol’s internal conflict over his name is a bit vague and woefully inadequate to describe an aspect of the novel so quintessential to its theme and arguably, its namesake.
ReplyDelete*Sorry this is long* Enjoy! :]
ReplyDeleteAlthough, David Kipen addressed good points towards The Namesake I tended to disagree on one of his opinions.
Kipen pointed out Jhumpa Lahiri's sentence mistake, which I noticed first when I read it in the book but moved on because I knew Lahiri posess unique styles of writing and maybe this was just one of them. I agree on this mistake, though it's the only mistake he has evidence for Lahiri showing. Plus, anyways Lahiri has a talent for creating amazing sentences such as: "He tries to peel the image away from the sticky yellow backing, to show her the next time he sees her, but it clings stubbornly, refusing to deatach cleanly from the past" (Lahiri 207). In addition, I also agree with Jeffery and Naftali about how Kipen points of Lahiri's style of diction and showing repetiveness amoungest Gogol's 3 unsuccessful relationships with women.
What striked me was when Kipen expressed his statement that said, "Jhumpa Lahiri's assured, seemingly unambitious but, in the end, quite moving first novel." If I'm wrong correct me, but I interpreted Kipen's statement as he felt the book moves the audience but it doesn't inspire others. I disagree with this statement because in my opinion contrasting Kipen, I felt this novel does bring aspiration/ambition to some people to keep the importance of the cultures that their parents have taught them still within themselves though influenced by other cultures around themselves in society. Since this novel has similar concepts of Lahiri's life, this can show that she was influenced by two colliding cultures as well only to still be inspired to do the same thing: stay intact with her Indian culture even when she starts a family of her own and influences her own children with the Indian culture even in America.
Lastly, I liked what Kipen said how when Gogol starts realizing the importance of family and when "discovering birthrights, unlike short pants, can be handled down but never fully grown."
I would have to say that David Kipen was right on spot with how Lahiri uses her diction. That she would use unusual diction to emphasize and important point. To build off of what Jeffrey said, I have to disagree with Gogol every truly liking the name Nikhil. Towards the end of the novel (especially the last chapter) he has a new found devotion to his name when he discovers the book of short stories his father had gave him.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I do enjoy the analyze that Kipen gave on how names are shortened and changed which in some ways show a loss of identity and meaning, which connect to the significance of the title. With the name "Gogol" there is no way to Americanize it and change it to bastardize it to something like Nick from Nikhil. Nikhil was nothing more than an escape from his identity. An identity he could only get so far away from until it slowly crept back into his life.
I hope this makes sense. I had to finish the novel. It was a fantastic book. Moushumi will forever be on my hit list.
I really liked how David Kipen pointed out the details Lahiri uses in the novel. I actually didn't notice how Lahiri's diction and imagery had more meaning to it behind just good writing techniques. For example, when he writes about how Lahiri described the women Nikhil met had her hair in a chignon bun, Lahiri was also foreshadowing that the woman would be unfaithful since that is the "the same bun favored by the faithless Madame Bovary".
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Clarissa on her statement about the quote "Jhumpa Lahiri's assured, seemingly unambitious but, in the end, quite moving first novel" because I also thought this book was very inspiring. I have never read another book that points out the struggle with cultural collision nor have I ever thought that people felt so strongly about it. I feel that Lahiri has inspired many reader who can relate to trying to run away from their diverse cultures and learn to accept it. So, I also disagree with Kipen
Lastly, I agree with Andrew. This was a fantastic book, probably my favorite out of all the books we've read at Oceana.
After doing so much analysis of the book, I feel that Kipen is on target with his description and breakdown. I also noticed all the vibrant diction of the novel and how Lahiri chose all the perfect words for each scene of the book. I agree with his ideas about how a single word or re-written phrase completely changed the entire tone and mood of a passage, like the clementine example that Kipen used. Just a few words changed the passage from sort of sensual, detached, to in the room with the two of them, watching them feed each other the small oranges lovingly. I also agree with Kipen when he speaks about how Lahiri adds extra scenes and details to make this book much more realistic, and easier to connect to, which, in turn, makes the book more meaningful to the reader and aids the reader to connect to the story more, and even to their own lives.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that this review is like an essay. Kipen analyzes the book just as we would in class and so I can sorta see how our knowledge could be used outside of class. On that note, I must say that he answered the home prompt just how I wanted to, but could not put into words like he did. It was this part: “As Nikhil/Gogol grows up, attends Yale, becomes an architect and gets married, he gradually outgrows his family, or at least thinks he does. Only as he ponders starting a family of his own does Nikhil/Gogol discover that birthrights, unlike short pants, can be handed down but never fully outgrown” (Kipen).
Overall, I mostly agree with Kipens review, the exceptions being the parts that I didn’t fully understand, or the comparisons with The Interpreter of Maladies, Lahiri’s other book. As for the book itself, I must agree with Tiff, all the other pieces of literature that I have read at Oceana pale in comparison to Lahiri’s expert use of language, and writing techniques. It has such picturesque and expressive language, that even though some chapters were long, they kept me interested because Lahiri presented the characters so well.
Take Moushumi for example. There wasn’t as much flamboyant diction used around her character, but the tone and writing styles, the incognito foreshadowing and feelings invoked from scenes and descriptions of her really set me off, and when I learned of her affair, I abhorred her, and thought of her as a nefarious _______ (you pick a word). Then I thought about her realistic writing style, and realized that this happens in real life. Life doesn’t and rarely ever ends in a deus-ex-machina. But you guys get the idea that this book is super awesome. This probably shouldn’t go in the conclusion, but im not sure where else to put it, so yeah. End of happy rant.
In my opinion, this review held both agreeable and disagreeable comments. I especially enjoyed the notice and recognition Kipen displayed to Lahiri's choice of timing and diction. I completly agree that she saves her shining moments for intense, and emotional passages, while still maintaining a beautifully written composition of relatable scenes and descriptions during the less "extraordinary" moments of Gogol's life. Which brings me to my first disagreement, it may just be a personal preferance, but I was not fond of Kipen immediatly referring to Gogol as Nikhil. Personally, while reading, I had continued to see him as Gogol, and Lahiri had also continued to call him Gogol in her narrations, even after the changing of his name, so I found it odd that Kipen used 'Nikhil' to adress the protagonist of the story, rather than the authors preferred name. The other disagreement I have is that Kipen had stated that Gogol's luckless relationships ended "comically". I found no humor in his multiple heartbreaks. Despite these criticisms, I'll end on a brighter note. Kipen's regards to Lahiri's autobiographical tendencies in her writing was reassuring, because throughout the readings, I was continually thinking of the reading we had about Jhumba Lahiri, and her views on growing up with two cultures and connecting it to the feelings that Gogol was experiencing. Overall, Kipen made some good points, and showed me that this book could easily be accompanied by multiple opinions. Thanks for reading. :)
ReplyDeleteThe review had some agreeable, yet disagreeable aspects to it. I like how Kipen notices that Lahiri decides to save her eloquence for the events that are worthy of it. Like what Erin said, I found it sort of uncomfortable with Kipen referring to Gogol as "Nikhil" already because Lahiri doesn't refer to him as Nikhil until the last few chapters. Also, I don't agree that Gogol's relationships ended "excruciatingly wrong," either, because he was able to grow from the aftermath of each one. He had no negative feelings toward Ruth, Maxine, or Moushumi afterwards. I think that Lahiri had a very realistic approach to this novel, and she embodies the struggles of assimilation as first generation in Gogol as well as she embodies 0.5 generation in Ashima.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I liked this book a lot. I guess that usually whenever we read books in school, they somehow relate to whatever I'm going through in life, which is weird.
This isn't really important, but I just felt like saying that I read everyone's response in their voices. Weird.
ReplyDeleteKelvin Chan
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kipens analysis of The Namesake and how he says that Lahiri's diction evokes the tone she wants to evoke. How he pointed out that she used "eating every last clementine as they wait for Chinese food to arrive" (excerpt)instead of just using the word "eating" just to simply state the fact tht they were eating but to emphasize the romantic mood they were in. I also noiced that his assessment of the book was very similar to what we learned in class and the way he interprets it.
I just want to add that this was the book I most enjoyed so far in Oceana during my 3 year career because for some reason I felt a connection with Gogol and how he felt like he didnt feel as connected with his culture as his parents were.
Kipen's assessment of Jhumpi Lahiri's The Namesake had many agreeable aspects to it. In particular, I agree with his point that his name makes up a major part of his identity and who he is. I also agree with his analysis of the book's diction. Throughout the book, a feeling is conveyed that each word was chosen with great care, to help bring out the deeper meanings in the text. This is well expressed through the quote in Kipen's article.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Kipen pointed out how Lahiri uses unusual diction to emphasize the important points and I would agree with it.I would have to disagree with Kipen's opinion about Gogol's reason for hating "Nikhil". I think the main reason is that Gogol regretted changing his name because of his father's reasoning for naming him Gogol. Also,I agree with Erin about how it was odd for Kipen to refer Gogol as Nikhil because throughout the novel Lahiri mostly uses Gogol and I've only seen Gogol as Gogol and not Nikhil.
ReplyDeleteThis book is one of my favorite books so far. I really enjoyed it (:!
I do agree with Kipens assessment on the Namesake and how Jhumpa Lahiri's use of diction, which conjures "a richer, sexier mental picture altogether" helps bring out the theme of the book. This book is brings upon the issues of family love, sensual love, and romantic love. Through Lahiri's "careful" diction, it helps to emphasize these three types of love in the book and really get the readers to become closer to the book, which lead them on to the theme of the book, which is that through thick and thin, through love and lost, family love will always be the one at your side. And this idea kind of relates to the Hawaiian word "Ohana" which means family. "Family means nobody gets left behind, or forgotten" and that is what happened in the book. No matter how much Gogol tried to run away from his family, they never left him behind and even though Ashoke, Gogol's dad died, he never forgot about them. Through that and her careful dictions, Jhumpa lahiri emphasizes the importance of family.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Kipens assessment on the Namesake and how Jhumpa Lahiri's use of diction, which conjures "a richer, sexier mental picture altogether" helps bring out the theme of the book. This book is brings upon the issues of family love, sensual love, and romantic love. Through Lahiri's "careful" diction, it helps to emphasize these three types of love in the book and really get the readers to become closer to the book, which lead them on to the theme of the book, which is that through thick and thin, through love and lost, family love will always be the one at your side. And this idea kind of relates to the Hawaiian word "Ohana" which means family. "Family means nobody gets left behind, or forgotten" and that is what happened in the book. No matter how much Gogol tried to run away from his family, they never left him behind and even though Ashoke, Gogol's dad died, he never forgot about them. Through that and her careful dictions, Jhumpa lahiri emphasizes the importance of family.
ReplyDelete