Haley Hopkins
Ms. Nichole Wilson
AP Literature and
Composition
2 October 2013
2010,
Form B. “You can leave home all you want, but home will
never leave you.” —Sonsyrea Tate Sonsyrea Tate’s statement suggests that “home”
may be conceived of as a dwelling, a place, or a state of mind. It may have
positive or negative associations, but in either case, it may have a
considerable influence on an individual. Choose a novel or play in which a
central character leaves home yet finds that home remains significant. Write a
well-developed essay in which you analyze the importance of “home” to this
character and the reasons for its continuing influence. Explain how the
character’s idea of home illuminates the larger meaning of the work. Do not
merely summarize the plot.
I have read and understand the sections in the Student Handbook regarding Mason High School's Honesty/Cheating Policy. By affixing this statement to the title page of my paper, I am certifying that I have not cheated or plagiarized in the process of completing this assignment. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I understand the possible consequences of the act, which could include a "0" on the paper, as well as an "F" as a final grade in the course.
PART
I
In Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel The Namesake, the final scene depicting Gogol’s thoughts about the
discovery of the book his father gave him is powerful. In order to make her
theme prominent – that Gogol’s isolation led to a connection with his father –
she switches between present and future tense and employs vivid imagery when
doing so.
When Gogol first discovers Nikolai Gogol’s book, he
immediately “sits cross legged” (Lahiri, 289) on the bed in his old room. It is
here where he first starts to ponder his future. He wonders if he “will ever be
married again…ever have a child to name.” As he thinks about this, he begins to
read “The Overcoat.” This is where Lahiri switches from present to future
tense. Gogol begins to think about all of the events that will soon unfold. “In
a few minutes,” (Lahiri, 290) he realizes, “his mother will come upstairs for
him” (Lahiri, 290). And when she does, he will “walk downstairs with his
mother” (Lahiri, 290) and “join the crowded party” (Lahiri, 290). All of the
sentences in this paragraph begin with “he will watch” or “he will go”; there
is a buildup of all these things Gogol “will” do because after they are all
listed and described in detail, there is a switch to the present tense. Gogol
knows he will have to do all of these things sooner than he would like to, but
“for now, he starts to read” (Lahiri, 291). The switch back to present tense at
the end is what makes the biggest impact. Lahiri lists all of these things
Gogol will have to do even though he would rather read, and therefore make a
connection with his father – and this is the theme she wants to prevail.
As Gogol is describing all of the future events that are
bound to unfold, Lahiri employs vivid imagery. Her abundance of description
allows the future events to be seen, rather than simply told. Gogol figures his
mother will tell him to come downstairs soon because there “’are thirty glasses
of water to fill and line up on the sideboard”(Lahiri, 290). Later, at the
party, everyone will be “huddled on the sofas, plates held in their laps,
eating with their hands” (Lahiri, 290). Afterward, he will “help Sonia scrape
bay leaves and lamb bones and cinnamon sticks” (Lahiri, 290). All of these
events could have easily been told and not shown. But Lahiri made them so vivid
in order to add further impact to the tense change. After all of these events
are visualized, and the rest of the day is essentially laid out, Gogol decides
to just stay and read. He chooses his father over all of the other things that
are awaiting him, and that is what Lahiri wanted to be shown.
The two things that made the ending of Lahiri’s novel
powerful were decently effective on their own, but when combined, they are able
to showcase a theme about the bond between a son and father that was once
broken, but is now being mended because of a book that had been forgotten.
Lahiri is able to successfully make isolation seem like the best place to be
for someone who has just lost his father – and that is talent.
PART
II
In the final minutes of the film The Namesake, Gogol not only discovers the book his father had once
given him, but is able to use it as a connection between himself and his
father. The camera angles, settings, and narration in the film all allowed
Gogol’s eventual isolation to prevail as the object that, with the book, allows
him to have a connection with his father.
The camera angles in the final scenes of the movie show
Gogol nearing isolation. First, he is in his old room with his mother as he
discusses his and Moushumi’s broken relationship. Since he is with his mother,
he is not in total isolation. In the next scene, he has joined the party.
However, the camera soon angles on just him; though he is in a room full of
people, his loneliness is highlighted. Finally, Gogol is aboard a train,
reading the book his father gave to him so long ago. It is unclear whether
others are on the train, because the camera only focuses on Gogol. The camera
then zooms in even more, focusing on Gogol’s face as he looks up from the book
and begins to have a flashback. The camera angles make Gogol’s isolation more
and more prominent with each scene because isolation is a huge part of the
theme; it is what allows Gogol to connect to his father.
The settings in the movie are also important in making a
connection between Gogol and his father. When he discovers Nikolai’s book, he
is in his old bedroom, in his old house. This is where Gogol and his parents
used to live, and where their relationships used to be strong. Gogol begins to
feel isolated when he is there because his father is no longer with him, even
though everyone is gathered in a place where he used to spend so much time. The
final scene with Gogol in the train, though, may be the most prominent. Gogol’s
father was in a train crash before his son was born, and the only reason he
survived was because of the pages of the book that Gogol is holding as his own
train speeds along. The connection between the two trains makes an even larger
and more important connection between Gogol and his father.
The movie had the luxury of providing narration, which
made the theme more prominent. As Gogol is sitting on the train, a small
passage from “The Overcoat” is read. This brings to life the book that connects
Gogol and his father. There is also a moment when Gogol’s father can be heard
saying, “go see the world.” Hearing his voice makes his absence even more
prominent, which in turn makes Gogol’s newfound connection to him seem more
important. Being able to hear and see important aspects of the story, as
opposed to just reading, brings greater importance to the overall theme.
The film adaptation of Lahiri’s novel was able to use
elements different from that of the book to showcase the same theme. Gogol’s
isolation was made more apparent as it was shown on the screen, and the narration
made the absence of his father more obvious; this absence makes the connections
in the end more prevalent. Though Gogol was alone in the final minutes of the
film, it was still clear that a part of him was still with his father.
PART
III
Gogol Ganguli has just discovered the book his father had given to him long ago – the one that explained the reasoning behind his nickname. With this new knowledge suddenly thrust upon him, he must now come to terms with everything that has occurred throughout his life. The final scene of Jhumpa Lahiri's novel The Namesake and its film adaptation portray this- and they are not quite mirror images of each other. However, as the last sentence is read and the credits begin to roll, a central, paradoxical theme prevails: though Gogol is in isolation, he is able to make a connection with his father, and therefore his heritage. In both the novel and the film, Gogol blocks out reality as he reminisces life before his father’s death and wonders what the future will hold. In the novel, Gogol first ponders the distant future. As he begins to look at Nikolai Gogol’s book, he wonders “if he will be married again one day, if he will ever have a child to name”(Lahiri, 289). Essentially, Gogol is wondering if he will end up like his father: happily married and with a child to name and raise. These thoughts flood his mind because of the discovery of Nikolai’s book, which his father gave to him. And just as the book prompts a break from reality in the novel, the movie allows Gogol to think about everything except the present as he reads. In the movie, Gogol seems to focus more on the past. As he is sitting alone on the train, he has a flashback to a time when he is very young and is walking along rocks in the ocean with his father. We hear his mother cry out, “don’t go out too far! He is too little!” However, his father continues to walk him farther out. This memory shows the bond between Gogol and his father – and although their relationship may have been strained in the years preceding his father’s death, it is apparent that Gogol misses the connection. And even though he cannot physically reconnect with his father, he can begin to become closer to him through the book he was given. The settings in which Gogol makes these connections in the movie and novel are also similar in terms of their importance. In the book, Gogol is in his old house when he discovers Nikolai’s book – the gift from his father, and the reasoning behind his name. He “gets up, shuts the door to his room…sits cross legged on the bed…” (Lahiri, 289) and “begins to read” (Lahiri, 289). Gogol is in the room he used to sleep in during a time when he had a close relationship with his father, and he is reading the book that his father gave to him. This setting adds an additional physical connection between Gogol and his father, which shows that their relationship can and will begin to be mended. Correspondingly, the place where Gogol reads the book in the movie allows for a second physical connection. He begins to read “The Overcoat” as his train speeds along – and it is no coincidence that the pages of that book saved his father’s life after a train crash. The impact of the setting on the connection between father and son may be even more prominent here, because the book and the train are tied together. The most important similarity between the novel and film, however, is that of the underlying theme. In both works, Gogol is completely and totally isolated, yet he manages to make a connection not only to his father, but his heritage. In the novel, Gogol is alone on his old bed as he thinks about how sooner or later his mother will “come upstairs to find him” (Lahiri, 290). He pictures the inevitable events: he will “walk downstairs…join the crowded party, photographing the people in his parents’ life..” (Lahiri, 290). A million thoughts are racing through his head, and all of this is happening as he is in isolation. But because of the book, and where he’s reading it, he is still able to connect with his deceased father. And by connecting to his father, he also connects to his heritage. By comparison, the movie does a better job of emphasizing Gogol’s isolation – and therefore, the paradox that is the theme. The camera focuses in on Gogol as he sits alone on a train with Nikolai’s book in hand. A small passage from “The Overcoat” is narrated as Gogol is shown leaving a house, and then seconds later, back on the train – but looking up from the book as the camera zooms in on his face as the flashback begins. Because Gogol’s isolation is projected on the screen, it is easier to see how the book is the major connection between him and his father, as well as his heritage. And though the endings of both the film and the novel are different, this paradoxical theme still prevails
The way in which Gogol’s story ends in the novel and film differ, but those differences do not take away from the underlying theme of isolation and connection. In the book, Gogol focuses more on the future as the story draws to a close. An entire page is devoted to his predictions of how the following hours will play out. He knows that his mother will “open the door without knocking” (Lahiri, 290) and tell him “’this is no time for books’” (Lahiri, 290). He figures that after he apologizes, he will take part in the festivities “one last time” (Lahiri, 290); and finally, he will be “anxious to return to his room, to be alone, to read the book he had once forsaken…” (Lahiri, 290). Gogol is currently in isolation, but he knows that he will want to go back because only when he is alone with his thoughts can he make the connection to his father. Unlike the novel, Gogol reminisces while he is in isolation on the train. He recalls times spent with his father when both were younger, and perhaps happier, and when their bond was stronger than the binding holding Nikolai’s book together. He hears his father telling him to “see the world” because he will “never regret it.” Gogol focuses on the things he misses and wishes he had relished, rather than the things to come. Another noticeable contrast between the novel and film is the order of events the lead to the end of the film. In the novel, after Gogol discovers the book, he stays in one place: his old room. He collects his thoughts and thinks about how the rest of the day will play out; and then, even though he knows he will have to leave soon, “he starts to read” (Lahiri, 291). Gogol decides to stay isolated because it allows him to be with his book, which has quickly become the closest thing he has to his father. On the other hand, in the movie, Gogol is not by himself as much and moves around. After he discovers the book, he talks to his mother about how Moushumi has “found someone else.” He then joins the party, and finally ends up in isolation on the train. His isolation is does not seem to be as prolonged in the movie; however, its impact is still great because it showcases the theme. The contrasts between the book and the movie are minimal in relation to the paradox that becomes prominent at the very end.
Like all great journeys, Gogol’s comes to an end in a way that allows him to be content with himself and the struggles he has been facing. Though they do not do it in precisely the same way, Lahiri’s novel and its film adaptation both show the paradox between Gogol’s isolation and the connection he makes with his father – and his heritage – through the book his father gave him. By the end of both works, it becomes apparent that being alone really does have its benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment