What Would Shakespeare Think of Us?

  In this TED talk, Dan Poole and Giles Terera introduce the ideal of Shakespism, or the fear of Shakespeare. They think that today's society suffers from it, but not because we want to, rather because we have not had the proper education of Shakespeare that makes it engaging to learn. From a young age, today's society gets the impression that Shakespeare is too hard to read, or comprehend. So, in turn they avert from the entire topic of Shakespeare all together. Poole and Terera state that with the proper education that Shakespeare is relatable not just to one group of people, but to all people. They state that with the tools the messages of the Shakespeare are not just meant for one era, but for eternity, but due to the recent aversion to Shakespeare many will not know the themes and messages that Shakespeare's work provides. They state that in order for the Shakespeare's work to be valued that an intriguing education of Shakespeare needs to be provided in order to nurture growth and perseverance in that subject. I agree with their statement. I believe that today's society classifies Shakespeare in a level above everyone else, so that they do not have to take the time to effectively learn Shakespeare. I believe that Shakespeare conveys themes and messages that are valuable and relevant in today's society.

Shakespeare is Everywhere

   In Christopher Gaze's TED talk "Shakespeare is Everywhere", he brings up the points that although the formal language of Shakespeare is not present in today's society, it still very much alive. Upon giving background of Shakespeare's life, he relates it to the major plays that he wrote, such as Hamlet. He also states that many of our sayings derive from Shakespeare and that these phrases are now commonly used by everyday people. One of these sayings includes "dead as a doorknob." Gaze also brings up the point that Shakespeare is relevant to today's society because of the themes it holds and the variety of dimensions that Shakespeare has. He reenacts a side to Shakespeare that not many know about due to their knowledge of only Shakespeare's famous works, which in turn shows the audience, as well as all the viewers, that Shakespeare was more than just the tragedies and heroes. All of this evidence that Gaze presents lends to the idea that Shakespeare has not gone extinct, but in fact is still alive and relevant to today's times as well in the language that is spoken today and in the diverse themes that his works present.

Is Hamlet Actually Insane?

 There is debate on whether or not Hamlet is actually pretending to be mad or if he has actually lost his mind. I firmly believe that Hamlet started out as sane and only pretending to be insane, but eventually his act caught up with him and he became obsessed with unveiling what his uncle did that he lost his mind. In the beginning of the movie, Hamlet had periods of time that his sanity would shine through, however, as the movie continued forward those periods become less and less frequent. He also acts unstable when others are not around, unlike he did in the beginning of the movie. I also believe that Horatio now believes that Hamlet is actually insane now too. When Hamlet speaks to him it is in haste and not always coherent thoughts, which lead him to believe that Hamlet has gone mad for real. Throughout the movie there are little hints that show to me that Hamlet has stopped pretending to be mad, but is now legitimately insane. Do you believe that Hamlet is pretending or that he has actually lost it?

Hamlet

Upon the start of watching Hamlet, I was rather bored by the plot and found the language to be very hard to understand, but as the movie went on I understood the language better and the plot picked up. I especially liked the comedic entities of the movie, which added humor to serious situations and made it enjoyable as a viewer to watch. On the plot of the play, I think the mother is quite idiotic for marrying her late husband's brother. That just makes me feel disgusting. If I were Hamlet I would have just gone mad over their marriage, but then to find out from the ghost of my father that my new father/uncle has murdered him. I do not blame Hamlet from going mad, even if it was just an act. This movie picked up quite dramatically and now all these events are happening and I just hope that the Uncle gets killed because honestly his actions are sickening.

Shakespeare's Sister

  I firmly believe that there were women during Shakespeare's time with the same genius as Shakespeare, but due to the societal limitations for women, there would be no way for these women to pursue that knowledge and passion. Like Virginia Woolf's A Room of One’s Own, Woolf states that if Shakespeare had a hypothetical sister that she may have come to develop the same interests as Shakespeare did. For example, a love for theatre may have developed, but during those times women were not actresses so there would have been no way for her to pursue that passion, thus no way to reach the fame and recognition that Shakespeare's works have reached. I believe that this relates to that fact that women are expected to stick to different roles. In early times, women were supposed to take care of the domestic tasks, while men were off in school becoming educated men. As time passes, women start to migrate toward the roles of men, but still have to remain inferior to them. This carries over to modern times as well. Men get defensive and feel as though women are not able to competently complete a task, but this is just to this predisposition idea that women equal to men. This all correlates to the main starting point which Woolf made that women were not given the same opportunities as men from a young age to pursue their passion. Because of this, the women during Shakespeare's time were not able to make themselves known, thus allowing them to be forgotten as well as all the other female geniuses of the past.

Is Shakespeare Still Relevant?

  Upon reading this piece, I began thinking why in English classes all over the country are still reading Shakespeare if it is not easily comprehensible. Petri makes a good point that the modern technology makes it hard for the stories to be easily understandable and translated into modern times. If Romeo and Juliet were to have occurred in modern times, then Romeo and Juliet would have texted secretly about the fake death of Julie. Romeo and Juliet would have escaped the death that they were destined for in Verona. So, this piece of writing makes me wonder "is Shakespeare still relevant?"

  My initial thought is yes. I believe that reading these plays, though they are not easily comprehensible, enriches ones reading comprehension. It allows the me to understand the language and broaden my palette of literacy. It also gives a glimpse into the Elizabethan English that was common speech during that time, thus is a part of our history. Reading Shakespeare is important and relevant today because they are timeless tragedies, romantics and histories that will go down in history. I believe that the tales of Shakespeare still have lessons that still are applicable to today's times; Romeo and Juliet carries the message that love is powerful, which is demonstrated by both Romeo and Juliet taking their lives to be with each other. Shakespeare, however, is very hard to comprehend, especially if the reader has not been exposed to this form of speech before. Thus, forcing students to turn to help books, which in the end completely take out the poetry and beauty of Shakespeare's works. 

  I firmly believe that,Shakespeare is  still relevant, despite how outdated it may seem to students.

Darl

 In Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, Darl, when on the journey with his family to bury his mother, tries to cremate his decaying mother. This is due to his slowly decaying mind from PTSD. He wants his mother to be finally put to rest, like he wants his mind to be finally put to rest. So, he tries to burn his mother's coffin, made by Cash, and accidentally sets the barn on fire. Dewey Dell tells Vardaman, who has witnessed this action, to not say anything about it to anyone. The secrets and deceit in this family just keeps piling up as this journey proceeds, but I strongly believe that Darl thinks his mother's decay coincides with the decay of his mind. I believe he feels that the way to cure him is to stop the decay of his mother, thus stopping the decay of his mind due to PTSD. This scene in the book just really stood out to me because it clearly shows Darl's struggle with his condition and the rising tensions among the family with Cash's broken leg, Dewey Dell's pregnancy, Anse's selfishness, and now Darl's mental health declining.

A Message to Anse in "As I Lay Dying" Movie

Dear Anse,

   Please shut your mouth and annunciate when you speak!! It is actually painful listening to you talk and your teeth are just disgusting. I understand that you do not have the money to fix your grotesque oral situation, but spare everyone else from the sight of your mouth. Just wondering... how many flies have you eaten and how dry is your tongue?
   On the other side though, you do a good job of portraying how dirt poor and thick skulled you are. I can't believe you sent your sons to make three dollars when your wife is on her death bed! It is so inconsiderate and morbid because you knew she was going to die. So, in total what I have gotten out of this movie is that you have bad teeth and hygiene and you care more about money than you dying wife, whose last wish is to see Jewel.


In closing, CLOSE YOUR MOUTH AND BE CONSIDERATE,

Maddie Gergar

The Development of Darl

In Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the oldest of the Bundren family, Darl, speaks first. Even through this first chapter, Darl's character is developed and the readers get a better understanding of what he believes. In the opening chapter of the book, it is evident that Darl does not like visitors in his home because he feels that they are just watching his mother die. It is also demonstrated that Darl and his mother share a special kind of bond, but this is not directly stated. He wants the best for his mother and wants her to be at peace, and feels that having guests over is disturbing that peace. Darl's relationships with his other family members are not as special to him as his with his mother, but upon reading it is discovered that there is a sense of hatred among the family. They all have issues with each other.
Darl's character is developed especially through the first couple chapters that he is the narrator. These chapters are clearer than the rest of the family's because his thoughts are clearly organized, which allow the readers to understand his perspective and how he feels about certain topics, particularly his mother's death.

Style of Faulkner

In William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, Faulkner's style is easily detectable. He uses the style of stream of consciousness. This stylistic technique allows for the thoughts and ideas of each character to be read by the reader, thus allowing for a better comprehension of the characters as a whole. However; this form of writing can be very misleading for the readers because rather than following a plot, the storyline moves all over the place following the train of the thought of these characters. Faulkner imposes this technique not to confuse the readers, but to allow them to understand the inner workings of the each character's mind and allow them to understand what was happening through the perspective of each character. In Faulkner's book, it seems as though the younger Bundren family members' sections of the book are harder to follow. The storyline becomes more abstract and harder to piece together, as opposed to Darl's, the oldest of the Bundren children, sections.

The Desires Driving Human Behavior

   In his acceptance speech, Bertrand Russell goes into detail about the desires that power human behavior and to all of his points I firmly agree. He describes them as almost the backbone of our society by driving our economy forward with the acquisitiveness aspect of human nature and the rivalry aspect that forces man to compete for superiority. Among those two desires, acquisitiveness and rivalry, are two more desires that Russell discusses. These two are vanity and love of power. Man repeatedly demonstrates the power of these four desires not only in everyday life, but also in history as well.
   Acquisitiveness is the need for more, or never being content what one has. This desire is very prevalent in today's society with the new technology and other up and coming ideas to "make life better." For example, the newest iPhone will be released this September as Apple has said, but in my opinion what is wrong with the old iPhone. It is fully functional, has prime features and gadgets, but is still viewed as old, or outdated. People are never content with what they have and always seem to want more or the newer and better item. Russell gives the example of starved children who came to live with his family. These children had plenty to eat, yet still felt the need to steal potatoes from others and hoard their food. This may have been out of the fear that this food supply would run out just as theirs had, but I believe for the most part that this act was strictly out of greed. Acquisitiveness, not only is a backbone of our society, but also embodies human behavior and expands our economy.
    Two of the other desires that Russell states are love of power and vanity. These two desires coincide with one another, but differ in some aspects of their nature. The love of power is what drives man kind to tyranny for the most part. These leaders abuse their power just because they feel they can, but when it is time for that power to be taken away, these tyrants will do just about anything to protect it. I'm not talking about Hitler here, but yes he was a tyrant. I am talking about the tyrants of everyday life. The people in our lives who are just so power hungry they will do anything to feed that hunger. They want to feel as though they have superiority over everyone else. An example of this would be slavery in the South pre-Civil War. The slave owners were the tyrants of slaves, always abusing their power and dehumanizing their laborers. During this time not only were slave owners tyrants, but also whites in general were. They wanted to feel as though someone was beneath them. They wanted the ability to look down upon a population, even when some whites themselves lived in poverty with lower class jobs. The love of power was there and these whites would do anything to protect it; they would even succeed from the Union and cause a Civil War. Vanity goes with a love of power because it is the same kind of ideal. Vanity is seeking for the attention and approval of others. For example, a person rather than doing a good deed in quiet and receiving the self-satisfaction that he or she has helped someone else, would perform that same deed in the public, just so they would be formally recognized and praised for their actions. Vanity is all about how others perceive a person. Presidential candidates care deeply about this desire because their public image is a major factor of the election. This desire is most commonly found in our society today because our society today is so focused on how others perceive us, rather than how we think of ourselves. Vanity differs from love of war in this aspect: "vanity needs for its satisfaction is glory, and it is easy to have glory without power (Russell).Thus, vanity is the need for glory, while love for power is simply the need for power and superiority. These two desires coincide with one another, but differ in the aspect that you can have glory without power; however, these two desires are commonly found in everyday life, just not always detected. 
  The last desire that is discussed in Russell's speech is rivalry. This competition is our society in its entirety. There is a constant competition between man to be better than the other, but for what? There is no prize for being better than another person, just the satisfaction that he or she has now put down another person, but thats where the love of power comes into play. Russell discusses the desire of rivalry that is constant in our society today by stating that a person would gladly live in poverty if that meant reaping the benefits and leaving someone else's life in ruins, then goes on to state that is the background of taxes. Rivalry is constant in our society; its prevalent in our sciences with Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideal and the whole concept of evolution, and it is also prevalent in our history and our athletics. This desire is constant and has come to a point in society were man just believes that everything is a competition and just does not want to be left in the dust. 
   So, in final do you agree or disagree with Russell's points that there really are only four desires of humans that impact their behavior?
  

What Would You Do?

In Tim O' Brien's collection of war stories, The Things They Carried, Tim writes in his narrative, "Ambush" about the time his daughter asked him if he killed a man. At the time he says "Of course not,"(O'Brien 125) just to keep his daughter's fairytale, that her dad is a hero, alive, but as time goes on he wishes that she would ask again. He states "Someday, I hope, she'll ask again. But here I want to tell her exactly what happened or what I remember happening"(125). He hopes to one day fix his lie and come clean to his daughter, but he wants to do this at a time where he feels she would be able to understand why these actions occurred. 

Tim O'Brien then goes on to tell the readers the story of how he killed the man, rather than his daughter. He states how his platoon was on preparing for ambush, when a man passed him on the trail, so out of fear he killed him. O'Brien had no intention of killing the man though, all he wanted him to do was just go away, but his fear got the best of him and he threw the grenade that exploded at the man's feet. O'Brien states his intentions when he says, "there were no thoughts about killing. That grenade was to make him go away--just evaporate"(126-7). O'Brien did not want to kill this man, but the kill or be killed mentality was in his head, so rather than let himself die, he protected himself. O'Brien later goes on to say "I wanted to warn him"(127). This just goes to show that O'Brien is no cold-blooded monster. He was going to warn the enemy about a grenade that he threw. This just shows to the readers that O'Brien was a good guy with good morals and just reenforces why he wanted to wait till his daughter was older to tell her this story. He wanted her to understand that he had no malicious intent, rather he just wanted to protect himself. 

So, if you were in O'Brien's shoes and your nine year old daughter knew you went to war and asked if you had ever killed anyone, what would you say? Would you respond like O'Brien did and hope for an opportunity to come clean, or would you just come right out and say yes?

Character Development: Mary Anne

  In Tim O'Brien's collection of war stories, The Things They Carried, he tells the story of "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong" in this story the character Mary Anne is introduced. This story is told by Rat Kiley who has a "reputation for exaggeration and overstatement,"(O'Brien 85) so it is his own personal truth as to what actually happened with Mary Anne. Anyways, Mary Anne when she first arrive on the base she was this bubbly, "young"(93) girl who found herself entranced by war. Throughout the story, the change and development of Mary Anne from her young self to the Mary Anne who was just the shell of her former self, unrecognizable to her boyfriend, Mark Fossie.

When Mary Anne arrived to the base, she was described as this: "she had long white legs and blue eyes and a complexion like strawberry ice cream"(89). All of these adjectives relate back to her naiveté because her "white legs" are blank like a canvas, not yet damaged or scarred by the grotesque nature of war. Her complexion is that of "strawberry ice cream" a childish description, thus relating back to her childish nature. She, like all of the soldiers, was a child still, a mere adolescent, yet she willingly went to a place filled with death.

Throughout the story, Mary Anne's personality and desires change. Rather than just for Mark Fossie, Mary Anne found her own purpose and reason for staying on the base. She started to learn the trade and rather than be afraid of the monstrosities of war, she liked the rush it gave her. As time goes on the Mary Anne everyone knew started to dissolve, but what remained was a war hungry woman. Once Mary Anne found her place with the Greenies, that was it, she was gone for good. Mark Fossie tried multiple times to pull the old Mary Anne out of her, but the war had already changed her. On Mark Fossie's last attempt to reach out to his old flame, the woman he saw was looked like the Mary Anne he once knew, but acted nothing like her. O'Brien writes, "At least for a moment she seemed to be the same pretty young girl who had arrived a few weeks earlier. She was barefoot. She wore her pink sweater and a white blouse and a simple cotton skirt"(105). So, this description at least goes along with the Mary Anne that Mark Fossie fell in love with, but when O'Brien continues he states, "her eyes: utterly flat and indifferent. There was no emotion in her stare, no sense of the person behind it. But the grotesque part, he said, was her jewelry. At the girl's throat was a necklace of human tongues"(105). The affect that war had on Mary Anne is definitely apparent through these quotes because from above the quote about her bubbly description to the description of her after being in a war zone for a number of weeks, the overall affect of the war and the development of her character is astounding. She turned into a war-obsessed monster from a young, naive girl. 

Who Carried the Most?

In Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, each of the soldiers carries something, whether it be an item or a figurative weight on them. Upon reading these tremendous weights that these men carry on a daily basis for hours at a time, the question who carried the most popped into my head. So, who did carry the most?
In my opinion it was Lieutenant Cross. He not only carried the pounds of artillery, uniform, and rations like everyone else, but also he carried "the responsibility for the lives of his men"(O'brien). Since he was lieutenant, he was the one accountable for all the men and no one else had to carry around that weight besides him. Along with the responsibilty that he carried, he also carried the death of Ted Lavender with him. Lieutenant Cross blamed himself for the death of Lavender because he felt that if he was not so preoccupied with day-dreaming about Martha that he could have prevented losing one of him men. That guilt that Lieutenant carried was not just a figurative weight. That weight can change a person and break them down, but Lieutenant Cross decided that he was going to use that weight to change. He decided to become a more focused commander and to lead his men more strictly.  Finally, the last weight that all of the men felt was fear. This fear was not the regular I am scared kind of fear, but rather a fear for their lives. These men risked their lives for America's freedom and they did not know every day if they were going to make it out alive, so in actuality this weight was not something that could be taken lightly. Lieutenant Cross felt that fear everyday, but he also had the fear of letting down his men and his country, which is a big job. It was draining to constantly having to check their surroundings and to worry that they might not make it home. Although these three weights were not actual items that Lieutenant carried, he carried them mentally and had to deal with their repercussions as they took their toll on him. So, in total I firmly believe that Lieutenant Cross carried the most.

The Things They Carried Style

Tim O'Brien's style in The Things They Carried is very different from the style of any other writers I have ever read. Even within the first short story, the style can be detected. Tim O'Brien uses the literary device called cataloging. He uses this device by creating a list of all of the items that the men carried, figuratively and materialistically, aside from the plot of the story. When creating these lists, O'Brien details the items meticulously by even stating the weight of each item and profiles the people by stating what they carried. For example, on page 2 of the novel when describing what Ted Lavender carried he states, "Ted Lavender, who was scared, carried tranquilizers"(O'Brien 2). While describing what he carried he is also telling the readers what his character is like and why he carried those items. Throughout the short story, he later comes back to characters mentioned earlier. To go along with the Ted Lavender, O'Brien later comes back to this character and continues with what he carries. He states, "But Ted Lavender, who was scared, carried 34 rounds when he was shot and killed outside Than Khe, and he went down under an exceptional burden, more than 20 pounds of ammunition, plus the flak jacket and helmet and rations and water and toilet paper and tranquilizers and all the rest, plus the unweighted fear."(6). So, as you can see, O'Brien gives detail to these items by giving their weight and stating that the fear Lavender felt as he died was heavier than the pounds of ammunition and gear that he carried with him. His style is apparent with the use of cataloging and the development of characters and the things they carried throughout the short stories.

Foreshadowing and Irony in A Prayer for Owen Meany

    In John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany, Irving uses the literary devices of foreshadowing and irony to link past events to the death and periods following the death of Johnny's mother, Tabitha Wheelwright. There are many instances where Irving uses phrases or descriptions to insinuate the impending demise of Johnny's mother and her funeral. The way that Irving juxtaposes these scenes is ironic because specifically when talking about Tabitha Wheelwright's wedding he foreshadows her death. So, in turn when it is supposed to be the happiest moment of her life, besides the birth of Johnny, the readers are remembering her death that is soon to follow.
     When describing the wardrobe of Owen Meany at Tabitha Wheelwright's wedding, Simon, Johnny's cousin tells Owen that his suit "[looks] like [he's] at a funeral"(Irving 122). This statement made by Simon is not only foreshadowing the death of Tabitha Wheelwright and the funeral that is to come, but also the fact that it is Owen who is said to be dressed for a funeral is ironic because Owen's foul ball is the reason for Tabitha's death. So, while everyone is celebrating the union of Tabitha Wheelwright and Dan Needham, the readers are reminded by Owen Meany specifically that Tabitha's happy life will be cut short by a freak accident.
    Not only did Owen Meany's wardrobe foreshadow the funeral of Tabitha Wheelwright, but also his gift for the bride and groom was death-like. Owen Meany gave Tabitha and Dan a piece of granite with their wedding date engraved in it. This gift as Johnny described it "looked like a tombstone for a cherished pet"(125). In a way Owen gave her a tombstone for the death that he would later cause, thus foreshadowing the foul ball that killed her. While the gift that Owen Meany gave Tabitha and Dan was heartfelt and meaningful it still reminds the readers that Tabitha will die, however at this point in the plot Tabitha is unaware of her demise.
   Irving also used the literary device of irony and foreshadowing when he used the quote from the bible, "That she and I may grow old together"(127). This quote is not only ironic because Owen Meany's foul ball will cut Tabitha Wheelright's life short , but also because it is said on a day that is supposed to be filled with love and celebration, however to the readers this quote just once again foreshadow's her death. This quote reminds the readers that Dan and Tabitha will not be able to grow old together, but that they will have just a few short years together before she is killed.
   Irving does a great job in foreshadowing the events to come and by doing it in an ironic way. He not only reminds the readers of what is yet to come, but also uses irony to create a sort of humor around these scenes. These are not the only examples of foreshadowing and irony throughout the novel, but these are just some prominent examples that came to mind.

Writing Style of John Irving

    I am reading the novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving and while reading this I am noticing his writing style for this piece is used to help convey certain aspects of the novel to the readers. In this novel he uses capital letters for the speech of one of the characters, Owen Meany, and he also uses biblical references throughout the novel to demonstrate to the readers Owen Meany's beliefs and how he has influenced Johnny's beliefs.
   The use of capital letters for the speech of the character Owen Meany allows the readers to hear his voice. The capital letters stand out and make the words seem to be shouted, rather than the speech of the other characters which is written in normal text. These letters, since they are capitalized, allow the readers to visually understand the difference between Owen Meany's voice and the voices of everyone else. Since Owen's voice seems to be a main trait that set him apart from the rest, along with his scrawny stature and translucent skin, Irving does a good job in making sure Owen's speech sets him apart from the speech of others.
   Throughout the novel, the theme of religion is brought up by the many biblical references and by the trading facts of different religious cultures between Owen and Johnny. These references to the bible allow the readers to understand the beliefs of Johnny and how he credits Owen for them and they also allow the readers to understand Owen's own personal beliefs. When discussing the various forms of religion and each of the cultures' beliefs, Owen demonstrates that he has a deeper connection to God and that the religion he formally belongs to does not allow him to nurture that bond, rather it takes him away from it. These facts about the different religious cultures allow the readers to understand how serious Owen is in his faith if he feels they "believe less than he believed"(Irving 25).
  Irving's style for this novel allows the readers to get a better understanding of the characters and help the plot to move along smoothly. An example of both of the styles combined would be, "'GOD HAS TAKEN YOUR MOTHER. MY HANDS WERE THE INSTRUMENT. GOD HAS TAKEN MY HANDS. I AM GOD'S INSTRUMENT'"(90). This is quote demonstrates the capitalizing of Owen Meany's speech and the referencing of religion, or in this case God. So as one can see this quote shows the distinct voice of Owen, while also showing his beliefs. Irving uses this style to aid the readers in their understanding the storyline by allowing them to get to know the characters better.

Questions for the Author

    I have many questions for Jhumpa Lahiri due to the fact that the end of her novel is so frustrating!!! I loved her book and it was so well written but why did she have to make Kaushik die. It is just so frustrating and I do understand that these are real stories, but could she have at least left out the part of Kaushik drowning by the tsunami. So Jhumpa Lahiri I am left with these questions...
   Why do you make part two of your book seem like it is written in the format of letters or is that just me? I wonder if it is in order to make the readers feel like they are reading directly from the hands of the writer, in this case Hema and Kaushik. This format makes the readers feel like they are directly in the storyline and it helps to immerse the readers, me especially in this case, because I feel as though I can have a better understanding of the plot and the characters when I read a story in first-person perspective, event though there tends to be bias. So again in conclusion to this question I wonder was it just my interpretation that part two seemed to be letter format or was that done on purpose?
   Why does Kaushik have to die? I seriously do not understand this ending because Kaushik and Hema were supposed to end up together! I understand that it is a true story, but come on for the sake of heartbreak leave out the sad ending. I just wish that Kaushik could have lived and that in the end Hema would have realized that she made a mistake in marrying a man she barely knew and that she would run to Kaushik in Thailand and live with him in Hong Kong. It was just so unfortunate that they did not end up together, so I ask why not just leave out Kaushik's death and allow the readers to imagine themselves what happened to the star-crossed lovers, so to speak.
   I am left with many more questions for Jhumpa Lahiri, but I am so frustrated beyond words that I cannot find the words. The ending of the book was just a complete disappointment for me because I thought that Kaushik and Hema were destined for each other, but instead Lahiri's story took an unexpected turn and left me in tears.

Character Development-Kaushik

  In the novel Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri the character of Kaushik develops throughout the story of "Once in a Lifetime" and "Year's End."
  In the story of "Once in a Lifetime," Kaushik is described through the eyes of Hema and the story of her relationship with him is told by her own perspective. The way this chapter is written is as if she is telling him this story herself. Anyways, Kaushik is described as an outcast of sorts by Hema. He does not go to school because his parents were just moving back from India and have yet to find a house to call their own. Hema, despite having a major crush on Kaushik, is irked by his presence in her home and in her life. She does not know why he seems so aloof and angered to be back in America when he did not want to leave in the first place. Kaushik for the longest time seems to just be an angry kid. He seems to hate being back in America and back in the house of old family friends, who now are strangers to them, when being in Bombay was carefree and happy. When reading this chapter it is not until the end that the news of his mother's sickness is revealed. Kaushik's family moved back to America "not so much for the treatment as it was to be left alone"(Lahiri 251). As this news was developed the character of Kaushik became clear. He was aloof and angry because his mother was sick. He did not want to be in a household were he had to pretend everything was okay and that his mother's health was not declining. This news clarified the questions of Kaushik's character that were raised during the beginning of the chapter.
  The character of Kaushik is further developed in the chapter "Year's End." Kaushik is telling this story from his perspective and it fills in some of the holes that were left from the previous chapter. He explains his behavior from when he was living with Hema's family. He states that when he was in Bombay his life was carefree and his mother was not sick or at least the family was unaware of the sickness. He did not have to pretend to be happy like he did when he came back to America. So, it is understandable why he behaves like he did when he got back to Hema's house. He explains that he felt trapped behind a lie that everything was okay in his life. Kaushik also revealed to the readers that his mother had passed and that his relationship with his father had dwindled away because the loss of his mother was too much for either to deal with. They had all been in such close proximity together for such a long time due to his mother's sickness, that once the sickness was no longer there there was nothing to keep the family together anymore. In this chapter, Kaushik's character is shown to be one of a son who had dealt with a tragedy in his life and has matured him beyond his actual age. He has dealt with the loss of his mother and the news of his father's new wife and family. In the end, the true character of Kaushik is shown and how he felt during his move back to America from Bombay is revealed.
  In the first chapter that Kaushik is mentioned his character is described as one of which that does not  fit in. Later, it is demonstrated to the readers that during those times of being a "recluse" he was actually dealing with a tragedy that was kept secret by his family. He shows to the readers that he was not a recluse, but however he was just too mature for the age group he was apart of due to his mother's illness.

Character Ephiphany

    In the novel Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri, the character Rahul in the story of "Only Goodness" is an undiagnosed alcoholic. His problems stem from his childhood when his sister, Sudha, gave him his first beer when he visited her in college. That one beer was the start of his addiction which lead him to cutting ties with his family and abandoning his education. Later in life with the help of his girlfriend, Elena, he sought out help and tried to reestablish a relationship with Sudha and turn his life around.
   Rahul from a young age started drinking and he and Sudha would play a game where she would go to the liquor store and get alcohol and then hide it with Rahul from their parents. When Rahul got older, Sudha thought "the game" was over and there was no need to play it anymore, but when Rahul got home from college he came into her room and said, "Hey. Where did you hide it?" (Lahiri 131). When Sudha told him that she did not bring any home, he became distant which disturbed Sudha. Rahul was changing and not just because he was getting older; he was changing in the fact that he was starting to drink hard liquor, not just beer anymore, but this change was not brought to attention of anyone but Sudha and since she was the one supplying him she felt responsible. She did nothing about it and went back to school.
   However this game turned into a lifestyle for him. He would come home from college after failing the semester and hide out in his room. Sudha noticed his change in attitude and from what she had been told he let his grades slip. Rahul was slowly spiraling out of control and it was only going to get worse from here, but again no one was going to stop him because his parents did not want to think that Rahul was depressed and had a drinking problem and Sudha did not want to address the problem because she felt she was responsible for it. Sudha wanted to talk to Rahul about college and find out why he let things slip, but when she entered his room she noticed the "mug at the side of his bed, wondering how much he'd consumed in the course of the evening" (141). This should have been a flag of concern for Sudha, but she did not want to address the problem.
  It was not until things were starting to get worse for Rahul that Sudha finally brought the topic up to her parents. Rahul had just gotten pulled over and arrested because his blood alcohol level was high. When she mentioned to her parents that Rahul might have a drinking problem, they were in total denial, stating that everyone drinks in college, but Sudha contested that kids in college do not drink like that in college. I think her parents were starting to come to terms with Rahul's drinking problem at this moment because it explained his poor grades and his aloof behavior, but they were not going to admit it to anyone because in their eyes their children were "immune from the hardships and injustices they had left behind in India" (144). Rahul was only going to get worse from here and that was what happened. He spiraled out of control to a point were he ruined Sudha's wedding and ran away never to be heard by his parents again.
   After time had passed and Rahul had sort of become a figurative brother to Sudha as opposed to a real one, he had reached out to Sudha. He sent her a letter saying he was sorry for ruining her wedding and would like to come and visit her in London to see his nephew. In that letter he also wrote that he now lives with Elena and her daughter and got the help he needed. This news was a relief and came to me that Rahul was trying to be a better person for Elena and a father figure for her daughter, Crystal. When Rahul came to visit Sudha in London, he tried to be the person he felt he never was. He spend all of his time with Sudha's son, Neel, and seemed to have a new outlook on life.  Sudha was surprised by her brother's behavior and this to me seemed like Rahul had gone through a revelation where he realized he did not want to be the drunk, who was too self-absorbed to care for anyone especially his sister who had always been there for him.
  Rahul definitely was a better person towards the end of this story and I think he did realize he had a problem and got the help he needed because why else would he try to reestablish a connection with Sudha. Rahul had an epiphany and changed his life around and became a better person for himself and his family, but in the end things got to much for him and he had one sip that caused this time for Sudha to cut him off.