EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

I think that Mahasweta Devi constructed this story in such a way that the reader hopes some man will come and save Douloti because that is how every reader hopes a story will end. At least that is what I hope in stories. Devi created a character that the reader could empathize with. The reader knows that Douloti did not become a prostitute on purpose and that it is just because of the way the caste system works. Devi makes the reader understand the injustice and gender bias within the caste system. I believed that god things were on the horizon for Douloti throughout most of the story. I was really hoping that Singhi would take her with him and she would be saved from her forced prostitution. I also hoped that Bono would be able to save her somehow. I really didn’t give up on the hope that Douloti would be saved until the very end of the story when she could no longer walk and coughed up blood. Even when she was unconscious and the first hospital couldn’t help her, I had convinced myself that she was going to make it and get cured. I wanted her to make it home and be free. I really wanted Bono to defeat the caste system and fix everything. I was very optimistic throughout the story and it made me sad to realize that there would be no happy ending.

What I got from the end of the novel was that Douloti was supposed to symbolism the plague that occurs in India. Since she was a whore for a time-being, it symbolizes that because of this practice, India is forever shame. Well I shouldn't be that critical, but it just comes that way to me.

In the beginning of the novel, I think that it's significant that Spivak spat out a short introduction to Bono and Crook. It sets the uniqueness of the story, kind of a lot of jumbe thoughts.

It was interesting that Singhi said that Douloti was "good girl" because she didn't lust for money. I think it's ironic that he made this statement because he is for one in a whorehouse. I don't know how you distingush between being a good girl versus a bad girl. For one, Douloti didn't know that she was forced into a trade in which it was unpreventable. The other women don't clearly make it explicitly clear whether or not they lust for money. They've stated that money is important because it's crucial for survival!

I wish sometimes authors can leave their unique ways of writing at home. It was definitely confusing to connect the dialogues with one another.

The history before Douloti's sotry is I believe to show how the lenign and bomding slavery is continuous and consealing. Jus tlike the narrator said I think these past stories need to be told to really have an idea of the bonding isue in the culture. The narrator seems to be a neutral person who understands the rules and unfair stories of bond slavery.

I thought Devi was simply trying to show Douloti's innocence through her career. This is why throughout her story there were numerous times when there was mention of Douloti acting as a country girl and not the matured and experienced women that she had become.

Wow…I definitely had a difficult time when I started reading this story. The dialogue really threw me for a loop! The only advice I can give regarding understanding the dialogue is read it over and over and over and over and over again!

I wondered about the beginning a lot and its significance to the rest of the story. The more I think about it the more I realize it was very necessary to introduce Bono and Crook and tell their stories to appreciate and link the main point back to them at the end of the story. The entire story is based on the difficulties of these lower-caste people. Even when Paramananda buys Crook his “freedom,” he still takes his daughter and puts her in bonded-labor. These lower-caste people seem to be in a losing situation no matter what comes their way and the story tried to show this. Especially with Douloti—she is put in this whore house and dies in the end to attempt to make a point, to be heard by the upper-caste people.

Even though I felt no hope at all at the end, the story gave me a good feeling that these lower-caste people are not giving up. They are still fighting and hoping, they just haven’t found that “spark” they needed yet. (So no I don’t believe Douloti was the spark they were looking for.)

As for the “good girl” comment…I was confused: Did some of the girls choose to be there for money or were they all just thrown in there like Douloti?

Spivak refers to the upper caste men as god because she shows no fear in her writing, at least that's what I think. It definetly gives more of an edge to her writing becuase by using god it really describes the conditions. Many authors would shy away from this because it could offend some, but Spikak went for it and yes it may be uncomfortable to read, but that's how it must've been.
Douloti doesn't take the "way out" because as spivak describes "the gender-roles-confused-as-ethical-choice.
leaves Douloti choosing ethics. Women in India were expected to do certain things and in those things there may be different roads or choices, but they shouldn't necessarily have to pick any of them, gender put them in that position. The women would choose out of these thinking there was a choice, but really why did they have to be presented with that choice in the first place? Genering was taking place initially.

Devi seems to contruct all of her characters using the same voice. This, of course makes it difficult to pick apart dialogue, but I think she choose to do it for a reason. She seems to be making a point about the caste system of India---the working class works for land lords who take all there money and prevent them from ever improving there life or escaping the caste system. i think Devi was trying to convey that these people arwe all the same, hence the same voice.

overall, i found the story extremely confusing. Spivak's translation, which was very well done, seemed wordy and overly academic. i am of course in no position to critique Spivak, but she's too good at what she does.

I've struggled with the voice of this story throughout. At some points I think it is someone within Douloti's caste, but then I wonder if it's one of the "gods" as some conversations occur with only upper-caste men involved. If I had to guess, I'd say the voice is a servant in the main house.
I like that Spivak says "gods" as it implies the power and persona these people employ. In my other class, we're reading about the development of the state and how rulers often personafied themselves as deities in order to gain power over the lower classes. Although these upper-caste men are not actually claiming to be gods, essentially forcing these people into endentured servitude is a great power. Spivak's use of "god" portrays this power.
In ref. to the fourth question, I found that helped make the story all the more poignant. This is not a cinderella story where everything turns out great for her. If that had been the case, the reader would have been left with the same feeling as reading cinderella. This isn't a fairy tale, but a story exemplifying the ordeals people go through in that system. To give this story a happy ending with a man "saving" Douloti would have made this story an very innaccurate protrayl of a real lifestyle.

I was trying to look for a place in the story that matches up with what Spivak said about "internalized gendering..." but nothing appeard to me clearly. The Q above sheds some light but still seems to be an unclear connection. I try to relate other things I've studied to this topic namely slave narratives from the american south and also theories of "power". what these both reveal to me is that, short of total physical constraint, some degree of freedom always remains. For american slaves there were a range of forms of resistance. In power theory I read that on some level there is a form of acceptance of the situation and cooperation to it that takes place, which might be what Spivak is getting at. The philosopher that wrote about that stressed that this involves "sacrifices most of us are never faced with and would be unwilling to undertake". what is the cost if douloti had left the brothel? would the caste system have made it impossible for her to escape? I can't answer these questions here.

I am recalling a Charley Rose show that he had a woman on that recently made a film about the beggar children, the children of whores in India. Does anyone know about this? There are thousands of children like that living today on the streets.

Spivak reminds me of Vine Deloria Jr. (recently passed away) who was an important author/thinker for the American Indian movements that started in the late 1960's. Like Spivak, he was a very intelligent but also angry author who had good points but presented them in ways that made it hard for a wide audience to embrace. I think that some of deloria's writing have not aged well because of this. I've talked to two different people (both females) whom I consider very intelligent, one coincidentally is also Bengali (my old philosophy teacher), both of whom are more versed in Spivak than I. Talking to them helped formulate my impressions and helped me to articulate my feelings about Spivak's theories. They both found her inaccessable and hard to utilize. My old philosophy teacher is doing research on the colonial and post-colonial India.

I thought the text was good, it is a different style of storytelling but I enjoyed the format. The narration was very "storyteller-like", I am not familiar with traditional styles in India but it reminded me of translations of greek stories at times when it jumped from segments on Bono to Duoloti's story.

The story was very sad. Maybe the end refers to those who were left behind when independance came and how there are so many women trapped into that life and how they suffer society because of it, like double wammy.

I think Spivak embraces the word god for upper caste mainly because it makes westerners feel uncomfortable. We feel uncomfrotable because we are mainly monotheistic and don't believe in false idolitry. Using the word "god" for people is just something that does not take place in every day life.

Going back to the intro as well, I thought it was interesting that Spivak stated that just as there are liberals and conservatives in the US, there are the same extremes in the India and that generalizing an entire country base on one person would be ridiculous. I think this point was insightful because it makes sense and kind of made me think of my own ignorance.

In the story Spivak translates upper-caste to mean “god” while other translators will try not to do this. I believe Spivak does this as a device to increase the divide the upper and lower classes and to draw attention to it. When I was reading I immediately noticed Spivak’s use of “god” and was confused about it. Later on I figured out what she meant, and the meaning meant more than if she had just used upper-caste or something like that. By translating it this way it gives more power to the story. She wants to make a point of it and make it a very important part of the story.

I actually didn't realize it was Spivak's choice to use the word god when referring to the upper-caste men. When reading it, I thought that maybe it was a title the upper class had given themselves to show just how high up in society they are. It makes it seem like they are so far above everyone else that they are like gods, the only difference is that they live on the earth and have human forms. I think Spivak used the word 'god' to emphasize this point. It shows the huge class difference between people like Crook and Paramananda. It is also interesting to note that (I'm almost completely sure) all of the "god" characters played very villain like monsters. To say that all of them are unlikeable is an underestimate. In a way, its almost ironic that Spivak would refer to someone such as Paramananda a god. It almost adds to the distastefullness you get when you think about his character in the story.

: ( this story just made me really sad and depressed... especially since it's based off of real life events. I can't believe that a pandit would buy a 14 year old girl and give her to a brothel. I know that India has a lot of troubles in the prostitution department, but to think that a priest would help the process... BLASPHEMY!! The whole India-poverty/prostitution/labor thing upsets me. This makes me want to adopt little Indian girls. The whole thing just shocked me. I've watched documentaries (Born into Brothels & PBS specials) on the issue, but reading about it was still shocking. I don't know.... it's just sad.

Now the whole referring to the higher caste people as "god" confused me a bit. The word Brahma means god. Brahman is basically a caste of pandits/priests... people born to be religious figures. The "n" in the word is kind of nasalized so maybe Spivak couldn't translate Brahman to something.. so she chose the closest sounding thing "Brahma." I'm probably wrong but that was my thought on that. Plus, Spivak is very bold- she probably did just want to shock the reader as well. (well it worked...)

There was no way out for Douloti; she was sealed in her fate when she was brought to the whorehouse, especially when she started into her line of work. Women in India at this time didn’t seem to have as many rights as men, let alone a Kamiya woman, so it’s not like she could go to the local police. If she returned home, she would be more of a burden her family if she even got to stay there – I would think she’d be sent back right away. She couldn’t go with Bono, he never even offered to take her with him, he just seemed to feel sorry for her, and she couldn’t be a beggar because she hadn’t worked off her loans, so there really were no options for Douloti. The only option I can think of is that of death, but she decides to endure a rather painful death that she doesn’t choose. Her dying “all over India” wasn’t even a decision; it’s just where she fell on her deathbed. Although the effect is great, her body symbolizes all the Kamiyas around India and how the government can’t ignore them anymore but this was not her purpose, she just wanted a place to lie down and die, which makes it even sadder. Douloti accepted her fate and her station through her entire life, choosing never to break female expectations and it seems by mere chance that her death will make a statement because she just laid down to die in some schoolyard, not knowing what she lay on. It seems like her life in a way; she lived it, but she never realized that she could make certain choices.

I think the symbolism in this story is a great lesson to be learned. Douloti definitely was the subaltern who even to the end never found a way to express herself accurately. She could not be heard until her death and even then she was not the “spark” unless things began to change but hopefully someone learned from it and it would be like a seed of beginning freedom for all the Kamiyas.

The story definitely was confusing to me at first but eventually I got into it and was very devastated that it did not end happy for Douloti. The saddest part about this is that Douloti’s story is a representation of so many true stories all around the world and that so many people really do live like Douloti, in bondage. I began to wonder after the reading what Douloti would have been like had she become free. Would she have been so bitter and hurt that her soul would still be in bondage or would her soul be able to heal and be free as well? This story is definitely a good reminder of not to take the opportunities and the freedoms we have for granted. Even if we have it bad, there is always someone who seems to have it worse.

The Bono and Crook story needed to be set up for the reader because it explains what type of society Douloti is living in, so that when we read about Douloti, we can also see the world and its machinations around her. If it had just been about Douloti from the beginning, we might think that it would be easier for her to get out of situation because she is not a slave, but through the story of her father and her uncle, we can understand that she is in reality a slave by loans, so her situation is uneasy if not impossible to leave from. In relation to this, I think her inability to believe that she could be more than a whore upon becoming one is another downfall. She could have learned and become more like Rampiyari, but she didn't. This helplessness is understandable in light of her situation, but I still think that the internalized gender role played a part in her decision to do nothing.

The story of Crook and Bono gives the reader a sense of what type of society Douloti is living in, the different classes and the law of money-lending, the main issue in the story. The text is very difficult to understand who is saying what, and i had many confusions on the people. Are the people classified by their name, class, or where they live?

When we first meet Douloti, it is a little confusing to know what a god refers too. While reading about Douloti's story, a god is someone who lends out the money, and expects payment through work, in Douloti's case, being a prostitute. I never expected DOuloti to get help from any man. Although Signhji was a man who was kind and gave her money, no man would relieve Douloti of her loans, and it was the law to have woman become prostitutes if they had loans, to pay them off. When reading, it was frustrating to know that no matter what Douloti did, the money that she gained she would never see and would never help her leave the house. It was also frustrating to know that she could not save any money throughout her years there, money that could have helped her survive.

I beleive that Douloti's death is a symbol of the suffering that women go through in the country, and nothing is being done about it. She died right in front of the Independance flag, and although the government was working on laws against these bond-workers, will the suffering of woman, like Douloti ever end? Her story and the stories of women like her are all around India.

Douloti “all over India” is a way that Devi tells us that Douloti’s case is not an individual case, it is even one that can be interpreted as common. According to me the reason Devi chose Srivastava’s map as Douloti’s deathbed is because of his deep belief in police, government and education, it’s a question to those pillars. Is this young girl’s death the outcome of those institutions? The date of her death, is also a question, are we really free, when things of this nature are as widespread as they are?

We learn about Bono early on because the writer wants us to get the 360' perspective on him before we jump into a story. It helps to know the character throughout the reading.
Towards the end the quote..."Douloti smiled in a timid way like any other country woman" (92). I think she smiled in that particular way because thats what she was supposed to do. Maybe because it was the womans job to accept certain things and to refrain from their own individuality.

Spivak uses the term for upper caste men as “god” because this is the closest thing they resemble in the English language. As we have seen, Spivak is not one to shy away from taboo, so she clearly embraces it and maybe even hopes for controversy. Other translators may shy away because in the Western culture not too many things are referred to as god other than god himself. So using that term may come with pre-conceived notions for western readers of the story.

I am not really sure why Devi runs some of the dialogue together and doesn’t use quotes. It definitely makes it more difficult to read and understand. I don’t know why an author would want to confuse their reader….? Unless they wanted the reader to pay close attention or re-read the passage?

Dena: Yes, I think you have a strong answer to your own question (why no quotes).

It's also a cultural thing--the way we use language changes, and some use quotes, some don't. But Spivak and Devi are both very aware that American readers expect quotes, and they don't provide them.

I feel that the choice of techinical features is a result from a combination of things. I feel that is a cultural thing as Marcia mentioned and how different "rules" or written language changes in geographic reasons. I also think that it's to show that they don't have to follow the rules of Standard written English and therfore making a kind of rebellion in that sense. I thin that Spivak and Devi write without quotes to possibly bring to mind that we are all the same, that it shouldn't matter who's speaking. Also with the poetry like excerpts it may be more of a cultural connection there like they are telling an oral story and this exerpt should become a passed on tradition in the culture.

Douloti was written in such a way that it highlighted the hopeless case of a subaltern very graphically. Throughout the story it felt as if some person will finally come and rescue Douloti but it never happened. Maybe Devi wanted to point out that the subaltern is left on its own and has to raise on its own feet and cant depend on anyone else to raise it from the pits of despair and exploitation. The ending of the novel somehow seemed too dramatic and also a fitting end to the overall message that Mahashweta Devi wanted to portray; that no matter how much a country is considered to be an independent country, the blood of the subaltern will taint it from achieving the true freedom that its forefathers fought for, the freedom of equality.

The word "god" used to refer to the bond slave owner really startled me. That is a very powerful title to address someone with. I think Spivak chose to use this translation because it was the closest translation of Devi's work. As said in class, I think that it was bold of Spivak to do this because a lot of other translators shyed away from this term they used "boss" instead. It really made me read the text in a different way. Dorsana really helped me think through why this word is used. It really stuck with me when she said that calling someone "god" wasn't in a way that they should be worshipped, but because that person has an all-powerful control over their bondslave's life. Thanks Dorsana!

I think Mahasweta Devi very deliberately set us up to believe Douloti was going to be saved by some man so that she could strip us of this way of thinking. An obvious example of our obsession with the proverbial "knight in shining armor" would be found in Disney movies. Even heroines in these movies are saved by an overbearing male character. Not to mention that in these movies, often the setting is a foreign land or country-we are so trained to believe in foreign nations as this fantasy world we've been exposed to all of our lives through the media, and I think Devi wanted to deconstruct those standards.

Maybe I missed something, but it never once occured to me that a man would come and rescue Douloti! I think the way the story was constructed was very harsh in it's depiction of how women were treated in this society. Under this sense, I knew things were going to escalate to a grim and morbid ending. I didn't ever think Douloti would be saved, I knew that things were going to end abruptly and tragically. It's the classic case of the subaltern never finding a voice, no matter how many people they come into contact with (and in this case, that contact is much more graphic). My heart ached for Douloti as we saw her forced into increasingly awful circumstances. Is there no one to stand up for the weak? How do we take care of our destiny when there is nowhere to run?

I gotta give it to Spivak too. She seems to take perverse pleasure in making the reader as confused as possible!