The God of Small Things

            Suzanna Arundhati Roy was born in born November 24, 1961. She was raised in India by her mother after her father left the family. She received an education from the School of Architecture and Planning, Delhi, where she met Gerard de Cunha, whom she lived with for awhile before their relationship ended. She received a position with the National Institute for Urban Affairs in Delhi where she met Pradip Krishen, who introduced her to the world of films and media, which Roy quickly gained a role. Eventually, she lost her desire to be in the film world, and tried to occupy herself in other ways. She and Krishen split, and Roy went on to write, The God of Small Things in 1997. (More details on her life and India are included in the Background Project, which is the video that can be found below.)

            The God of Small Things is a highly contested work, and Roy’s only work of fiction. She has said before, this will be her only work of fiction and so far she has stuck to her word. Major themes and motifs that appear are “The ‘Rules’ of Love”, “The Weight of the Past,” and the “Perception of Reality.”  “The ‘Rules’ of Love” can be seen in Ammu’s previous relationship, and later her relationship with Velutha, as well as in the relationship between Estha and Rahel, in which they become lost after previous experiences with their family and elsewhere and take their relationship to a level considered inappropriate and undesirable for siblings, especially twins, as well as Baby Kochamma’s relationship as she seeks after Father Mulligan, among others. The “Weight of the Past” can be seen particularly in the life of Estha who struggles constantly throughout his life following his encounter with the Orangedrink Lemondrink man, among several other characters. Finally, the “Perception of Reality” which is demonstrated throughout the novel as Roy does not make her story follow the chronological string of events, but rather jumps between times and places to provide the perspectives of several characters in succession.

Movie Trailer

Video Link

Essay Promt #5

The God of Small Things is an extremely unique book from the standpoint of the dynamic time periods. During the story, the present occurs when Rahel and Estha are in their 30’s, but most of the storyline told occurs in their earlier childhood. The story constantly digresses to earlier times that end up explaining some of the larger events in the story. Rahel and Estha both experience different events that eventually define them in their adult years. Most of these events are adverse or scarring, and the results of these events stay with the children until they are much older. So, why should these children experience so much pain and suffering at such a young age, when they should be in positive relationships with those around them? Why can’t Roy “allow children to simply be children?” The novel was about adversity and family life, and events that happen in childhood last with people their whole lives. Rahel and Estha’s characters are defined by these significant events that happened in their childhood. The twins are not “allowed to be children” because the events they experienced are necessary to their character development and to the storyline.

The death of Sophie Mol impacted the lives of the twins as well. Sophie Mol was a character that was mutually accepted by both Rahel and Estha, and wanted to be friends with them. She desired this friendship so bad that she stole assorted foods and valuables to “drive a hard bargain. To negotiate a friendship.” (pg. 253). The twins acknowledged how much Sophie Mol tried to gain acceptance, and let her join them in running away. When she ended up drowning, the twins were not as much distraught as confused. At first, they did not know where she went, and why she would leave them. Eventually, the reality of her death sank in. The death of a good friend is something that does not go away throughout someone’s life, and this event stuck with the twins for theirs in the novel, as seen through the multiple flashbacks at the end of the book involving Sophie Mol.

Many other tragic events happened to both Rahel and Estha in their childhood, and these events leave lasting impacts on them. For example, the interaction with the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man leaves Estha scarred, and many decisions he makes later in the book are affected by the thought of the man. In chapter 16, Estha’s decision to stock their “home away from home” was influenced by the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, which negated the need for them to get food before they left (pg. 276). The interaction that Estha endured significantly impacted his life, and influenced many of his choices. Rahel, on the other hand, experienced events related to family love in her life, especially with Ammu. On multiple occasions, Ammu would tell Rahel that “when you hurt people, they begin to love you less.” (pg. 107). These instances would impact Rahel, because she would then believe that Ammu started not to love Rahel after every small mistake she would do. Eventually, Rahel gave up on the idea of sharing love with her mother.

The idea of family instability that was prevalent in the flashbacks of Rahel and Estha’s lives explain the eventual relationship between Rahel and Estha at the end of the novel. Their desire for love has led them to a physical relationship between the two, and this has stemmed from the lack of love from their childhoods, especially in Rahel’s case. Arundhati Roy did not let “children be children” in the novel, and for good reason. Life is not about sugarcoated fantasies, and everyone is going to face adversity at some point or another. That adversity will give lasting lessons or impact people in a certain way, and regardless of age, ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc., these things can happen to anyone. This concept is a human experience, not an Indian child experience. The circumstances Roy set forth for the twins gave little room for them to simply “be children,” and they were subject to adversity. As Estha thought to himself, the saying “Anything can happen to Anyone” rings true for the novel and the question about children simply being children.

Discussion Notes

1st meeting: Ch. 1-8

Summary: We are introduced to Ayemenem with returning to her family. Baby Kochamma is introduced as well as that Rahel and Estha are fraternal twins. A flashback to Sophie Mol, their cousin, introduces the rest of the family to the reader. We learn the backround of several characters to set the scene as well. Several events pass for each character as we switch from the past to the present to learn their characteristics. As they are riding to see The Sound of Music and family tensions reveal things in the past for Chacko and Ammu. We also learn the origin of Pappachi’s moth and how it brought him sadness. Then there is the ODLDM situation, which is seen to haunt Estha for the rest of his life. Velutha is thought to be a Communst. The book describes events leading up to the arrival of Sophie Mol. The story jumps closer to the present describing events after Ammu died. Tensions rise between the family and Velutha and the Communists.

Discussion Leader- Becca Fillip

Quality Questioner- Becca Fillip

How does status play a role in the lives of each one of the Ipe family?

Does Rahel feel nostalgic when she thinks of home or is not a feeling of happiness when she thinks of home?

The timeline of the novel is not sequential, but the death of Sophie Mol is repeatedly marked as very significant, but is her death the main focus of the novel or is Rahel and her relationship with Estha?

How do you see the social and cultural gaps in generations portrayed in this novel?

Baby Kochamma seems to be described quite often in the novel, and she also seems to have many interesting connections to the main characters. What do you think about Baby Kochamma’s character and her relationship with Rahel and Estha?

Creative Connector-  Caleb Quick

Page 63-67: Communism, Red Scare connection

Page 67: A rose by any other name

Literary Luminary- Nate Perena

            Rhetorical Question (p 32-33)

Ch 1 poses question about events that happen in book. Either it all began when Sophie Mol came to Ayemenem, or it is just another part of history

            Change in Point of View (p 134-135)

Ch 6 when passengers come off plane, they are more westernized and author gives their perspective - India is more dirty and poor

            Many/Combined Flashbacks

All chapters - gives background information, explanations of tendencies, event origins

Recorder- Ben Hallett

“How does status play a role in the lives of each one of the Ipe family members?’

Family is a relatively wealthy family

Owned the Pickle Factory

Go to movie dressed up

When driving home, roll windows up when the lower class people come by

House they lived in seemed dilapidated

Untouchables vs. Touchables- Ipe family refers to others as “Untouchables”

“Does Rahel feel nostalgic when she thinks of home or is not a feeling of happiness when she thinks of home?”

Rahel enjoys Estha and being around him

Rahel does not miss Ammu

“I love you a little less” instance

Ammu disciplined her children, and not every time the children were able to tell the difference between discipline and hatred.

“The timeline of the novel is not sequential, but the death of Sophie Mol is repeatedly marked as very significant, but is her death the main focus of the novel or is Rahel and her relationship with Estha?”

Sophie Mol is mentioned several times, which could lead to some of the problems later in the book linked to her

There are other issues already discussed in the book, so the main focus may not be solely about Sophie Mol

Many of the issues faced are due to family problems

The main focus could be family oriented

“How do you see the social and cultural gaps in generations portrayed in this novel?”

Big difference between generations regarding marriage

Mammachi and Pappachi stayed together, when Baba and Ammu divorced, along with Chacko and Margaret (in the same generation as Ammu)

Estha and Rahel’s struggles seem more honest, when the older generations stemmed more from mistakes

“Baby Kochamma seems to be described quite often in the novel, and she also seems to have many interesting connections to the main characters. What do you think about Baby Kochamma’s character and her relationship with Rahel and Estha?”

Baby Kochamma’s life could be background context for later events in the book to come.

Has many different connections to people

Baby Kochamma does not like Rahel and Estha

In fact, she wants to see them fail or experience something tragic in their life

At times, Baby Kochamma can seem scared of the twins.

Theme Analysis

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy details the lives of the Ipe family. It primarily focuses on twins, Rahel and Estha, but also describes numerous events in the past and present of their relatives. They are not told chronologically but the scattered story-telling adds to the effect of Roy’s style of writing. The characters entail that family plays an important role in the plot of this story, and it can also be seen as a theme. Arundhati expresses the theme that the relationship between family is an important part in the growth of character in The God of Small Things by including scenes of endearment between family members as well as moments of tension.

            A family is not a family without love, and Roy exhibits this in a scene between the twins and their mother, Ammu, where she discusses how much she loves them. “‘Everybody says that children need a Baba. And I say no. Not my children. D'you know why?’ Two heads nodded… ‘Because you're our Ammu and our Baba and you love us Double.’ ‘More than Double,’ Ammu said” (Roy 142). The children never really had a father figure, Baba, because he moved away when they were young children, but that does not stop Ammu from taking care of her children. By caring for her two children with relatively no help from others, it taught the twins independency when it comes to taking care of a family. Although it is not stated whether they had their own families when they were older, they applied independency in decision making. An example of this was Estha’s decision to built a boat to get away from the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man.

            That scene showed how Estha became independent, and Roy includes a scene solely for the growth of Rahel. Her, Ammu, Baby Kochamma, and Estha are at Abhilash Talkies to see the The Sound of Music. All of them except Estha go to the bathroom together. “Rahel liked all this. Holding the handbag. Everyone pissing in front of everyone. Like friends. She knew nothing then of how a precious feeling this was. Like friends” (Roy 91-92). Although a very peculiar scene, Rahel had learned the meaning of friendship from such a seemingly trivial human act. She liked sharing that experience with her family, so it cemented a strong relationship between them. Rahel also had the responsibility of holding their things while they used the bathroom, so she also had the duties of a woman as well.

            Alternatively, Roy to develop character with the arguments and scenes of tension between the family members. In the car ride to watch The Sound of Music Ammu and Chacko, her brother, are talking in the car when Chacko interrupts her saying, ‘“Ammu,’ Chacko said, his voice steady and deliberately casual, ‘is it at all possible for you to prevent your washed-up cynicism from completely coloring everything?’ Silence filled the car like a saturated sponge” (Roy 68). Since they are brother and sister, differences between them are bound to happen, but since Chacko verbally criticized Ammu, the other family members are bound to learn something form outburst. They, or at least the narrator, realize that family members are the ones that know where everybody’s weakness is. Although this is seen as a problem, Roy reminds readers that family knows family best even it is for exploitation.

            The times of affection between family members can bring out the most of its members. On the other hand, the moments of quarrel are able to shed the true colors hidden within them. From rough to happy times, a lesson can learned from what is said. Since most of the events that happened in the book took place when Rahel and Estha were kids, they learned the most from their experiences. Regardless of what happens Roy divulges all in order for her readers to understand her theme of family. Arundhati Roy expresses that the role of family relations plays an important part in the learning curves of each of the characters by her use of scenes of affection and tension.

Critical Analysis

Shazia Sadaf’s response to Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things is quite unique, as color never seemed to be a large part of the storyline. Sadaf’s article pertains to the use of color in the novel, and what each color symbolizes and how these colors fit into the story. Roy once stated that nothing in the novel was there by mistake, and this statement must include colors, which Sadaf covered quite succinctly. Sadaf explains that the book is based on an underlying web of interconnected ideas, and that colors are a part of these ideas. Colors are then used to bring out emotions of some of the characters and give the readers opportunities to either relate to or understand these characters further. After reading this article, as well as visiting passages in the novel, color does play a larger role than first anticipated.

            Sadaf refers to philosophical studies of color perception early in the article, which seems rather unnecessary due to the fact that the basis of colors discussed in the article are all well-known, and usually symbolize something concrete. The four main colors discussed were red, blue, green, and yellow. Red was the most often used color, and was used 113 times. Red seemed to be a color of danger or forewarning when looking back on the novel, but the article explains many other viewpoints. Red could be used to foreshadow a dark event, such as Sophie Mol’s death in the quote “the salted limes were red. The tender mangoes were red. The label cupboard was red. The dusty sunbeam (that Ousa never used) was red.” (pg. 188). This scene describes various objects around the factory that appeared red. This instance was one of the first times Estha had pondered fleeing, which would eventually lead to his running away and ultimately Sophie Mol’s death. Red could also symbolize rebellion, especially against the color blue (symbolizing British presence in India). Blue’s British connotation can be seen through Pappachi, Chacko, and the family, who “were a family of Anglophiles.” (pg. 51). Red and blue were two colors, that when used together, meant conflict between two parties.

            Yellow, unlike blue and red, does not combat another color when paired. Yellow predominantly symbolizes fear, as stated by Sadaf. After reflecting back on the book, this claim does in fact make sense. As seen in the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man experience for Estha, a color that comes into mind is yellow (due to the yellow lemon drink Estha receieves). This moment in the book scarred Estha for years to come, and it is safe to say the man filled Estha with fear. It is mentioned in this particular scene that the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man’s drew Estha in “by yellow teeth” (pg. 98), and the fear of the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man shown by Estha caused him to nervously follow the man’s orders.  The color green is used the least out of any of the words in the novel, but that does not take away from its importance. Green symbolizes oppression, as if some sort of green vine was metaphorically choking a dream or person. This is seen primarily through Baby Kochamma, whose garden was choked out by weeds and other vegetation. This metaphor explains that Baby Kochamma’s aspirations and love life were once existent but are now nothing more than a collection of passed on dreams that now wither away.

            The colors described in the novel not only give insight to different emotions experienced by the characters in the book, but they also add to the overall mood of the book. As noted above, all the colors convey primarily negative connotations, which add to and emphasize the mood of the novel. In the end, Estha and Rahel are still longing for a deeper love, and many of the other characters end up dead. Color identification is a facet of this novel that is overlooked that provides a much deeper insight to Roy’s novel as a whole, and ends up giving the reader a reinforced understanding of the mood of the novel.

Pictures

This picture would be place in Ch. 2 on page 47 when Pappachi buys the blue Plymouth car as a revenge for the betrayal and lack of respect he felt from his family. We chose to draw the car because it is passed on to the next generation after Pappachi dies; Chako, Ammu, and Baby Kochamma all use it. The car is just one of many things that are passed from one generation of the Ipe family to the next.

This image would be placed in Ch. 13 on page 237 when Chako writes a letter to Margaret Kochamma inviting her to come to Ayemenem after her husband dies. Chako and Margaret keep in touch over the years, but this is the first invitation she gets to come see him. She accepts and brings Sophie Mol, which ultimately leads to her death, a very significant part.

This picture would be place in Ch. 2 on page 47 when Pappachi buys the blue Plymouth car as a revenge for the betrayal and lack of respect he felt from his family. We chose to draw the car because it is passed on to the next generation after Pappachi dies; Chako, Ammu, and Baby Kochamma all use it. The car is just one of many things that are passed from one generation of the Ipe family to the next.

The picture of the Ipe family house and the garden in front would be placed in Ch. 1 on page 26 when Baby Kochamma’s past is being described. It is said that her father put her in charge of the front garden as a way to keep her occupied. This picture was chosen because it is a representation of Baby Kochamma’s effect on the Ipe house because she has inherited everything, being the last elder living. It also shows her control over the house because now she owns everything.

This picture of the movie theater Ammu, Rahel, Estha, and Baby Kochamma went to and saw The Sound of Music would be in Ch. 4. This location is very significant because it is where Estha gets molested by the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man. From this moment, Estha is deeply disturbed by this incident and it sticks with him throughout his life.

This is a picture of Velutha and Ammu, which would be placed in Ch. 21. The scene between Ammu and Velutha is very important to the overall message because although there are “love laws,” they can and should be broken. Touchables can love Untouchables. Also this one scene between Ammu and Velutha sealed both of their fates.

Quotations “Cheat” Sheet

(pg. numbers not given because of different editions of book)

“In a purely practical sense it would probably be correct to say that it all began when Sophie Mol came to Ayemenem…Equally, it could be argued that it actually began thousands of years ago”.

Where: Ch.1

Significance: This quote poses a rhetorical question in a sense to question how all of the events of the novel occurred: either by the arrival of Sophie Mol or that it is a part of history. It asks the reader to think of what the origin of this book is.

Response: There is no real response as the narrator contemplates to himself/herself, but instead a response from the reader as they think about it when reading through the book.

“And the airport itself! More like the local bus depot! The birdshit on the building! Oh the spitstains on the kangaroos!”

Where: Ch.6

Significance: Roy, in this instance, shifts the point of view from the main characters to people coming off the plane into India. From their descriptions it gives a different and quite negative status of India as being poor and “run down”.

Response: This quote is more of a response itself to the poverty of India, but it does illicit a response from the reader. They are reminded of the living conditions of India that was not specifically described by the characters previously in the book.

“As the hot magenta jam went round, Estha became a Stirring Wizard with a spoiled puff and uneven teeth, and then the Witches of Macbeth”.

Where: Ch.10

Significance: This is an allusion to Shakespeare’s Macbeth. This quote compares Estha to the witches in Shakespeare’s play, who were seen as the foreseers and paid attention to detail, which were some of Estha’s characteristics.

Response: This quote was actually a description that was not actually said, but later on Estha exhibits these by paying close attention to the recipes an constantly thinking about the the Orange Drink Lemon Drink Man.

“Chacko told the twins that, though he hated to admit it, they were all Anglophiles. They were a family of Anglophiles. Pointed in the wrong direction, trapped outside their own history and unable to retrace their steps because their footprints had been swept away”.

Where: Ch.2

Significance: Not only does this quote give a background of the family, but it also gives their opinion. They are described as Anglophiles, usually richer than the poorer population. They do not like being called that because they are pretty much lost in their own history.

Response: Rahel and Estha do not really understand what Chacko means when he says they are Anglophiles, but they can sense how Chacko feels about it though.

“Then she shuddered her schoolgirl shudder. That was when she said: How could she stand the smell? Haven’t you noticed? They have a particular smell, these Paravans.”

Where: Ch. 13

Significance: The caste system is seen in this quote by Baby Kochamma with the Paravans at the bottom. Baby is also seen as condescending when faced with individuals from a lower class. It is not to say that only she is like this but others as well.

Response: This was in response to a Paravan in the atmosphere. Mammachi then responds to this by agreeing with her and causing her to rebuke the Paravan and making him go away.

“‘More than Double,’ Ammu said. ‘So remember what I told you. People’s feelings are precious. And when you disobey me in Public, everybody gets the wrong impression.’”

Where: Ch.6

Significance: This quote characterizes Ammu while revealing an important plot point. Ammu is seen as strict, yet loving and a good parent to Rahel and Estha. She teaches them how society works in a very literal sense. She also reveals that most people are not emotionally prepared enough for the world, which can be exhibited in the kids later on.

Response: Although before saying that they loved her “double”, the twins now understand how to behave while sulking. Baby Kochamma agrees with her point, sarcastically calling them ambassadors.

“Inside the earth Sophie Mol screamed, and shredded satin with her teeth. But you can’t hear screams through earth and stone. Sophie Mol died because she couldn’t breathe. Her funeral killed her.

Where: Ch.1

Significance: Although a dark tone, the narrator expresses the details of how Sophie Mol did not die from her drowning (later revealed), but from the grave that she was buried in. Death is not labeled as death until others recognize it by burying away their death.

Response: Ammu and the children express sad emotions as the burial of Sophie Mol happened a few moments ago. They are all in a trodden mood as they go through the rest of their day.

“‘Liar,’ Rahel said. ‘Liar and pretender. I did see you. You were a Communist and had a shirt and a flag. And you ignored me.’

Where: Ch.8

Significance: Rahel although as a young child is implied to have known that Communists are not good. She talks to Velutha and accuses him of such. He accuses him of having an alternate identity, different from the Velutha that she knows. This also reveals some of the setting as Communism has started to gain ground during the time Rahel was around.

Response: Velutha responds by directly denying that it was him, saying that it was his twin-brother, who doesn’t exist. From his response it can be said that Velutha has some sort of regret to being a Communist.

“Baby Kochamma resented Ammu, because she saw her quarreling with a fate that she, Baby Kochamma herself felt she had graciously accepted. The fate of the wretched Man-less woman.”

Where: Ch.2

Significance: This give a little bit of background as to why Baby Kochamma the way she is. She is mean to Ammu and the twins because since her past was not ideal for her, the only way to make it even is to make their lives hard too. They did not appreciate the similar experiences as she did.

Response: There is not an immediate response, but in multiple instances Baby Kochamma further reveals her feelings towards other family members while harassing them. This is to appease her own emotions/

“If they hurt Velutha more than they intended to, it was only because any kinship, any

connection between themselves and him, at least biologically he was a fellow creature—had been severed long ago. They were not arresting a man, they were exorcising fear.”

Where: Ch.18

Significance: Hear, Rahel and Estha have now abandoned everything they had felt for Velutha. They are no longer sympathetic towards him as he is being arrested by the police. They also resort to getting rid of fear as to why they feel that way.

Response: Velutha is then confronted by the police, where Etha and Rahel watch, doing nothing. They only describe the gruesome details as Velutha slowly dies. The only thing they do is contemplate instead of help him.

“Who was he? Who could he have been? The God od Loss. The God of Small Things. The God of Goosebumps and Sudden Smiles.”

Where: Ch.20

Significance: In this quote the title of the book is stated indicating that the story revolves around this point. It can be argued that Velutha is the God of Small Things he took part in the simple pleasures of life like his love for Ammu, instead of indulging himself in the riches.

Response: Velutha cannot do anything to break the barriers of different classes, him and Ammu, but nonetheless Ammu responds mutually about her love for him. She also has found joy in the small things.

“As Estha stirred the thick jam he thought Two Thoughts, and the Two Thoughts he thought were these: (a) Anything can happen to anyone. and (b) It’s best to be prepared.”

Where: Ch.10

Significance: Estha reveals a bit of wisdom while cooking. What he says can also be a theme of the entire book as so many unfortunate events happened to several characters, like Baby Kochamma’s loneliness and the death of Sophie Mol. It is logical to think that Estha would want to prepare himself for whatever may come.

Response: This is one of Estha’s thoughts so there is not a response, but he now recognizes that he is content with his little “bit of wisdom”.

“The inspector asked his question. Estha’s mouth said Yes. Childhood tiptoed out. Silence slid in like a bolt.”

Where: Ch.19

Significance: This is the point where Estha and soon Rahel’s transition from childhood takes place. They no longer have their innocence as they finally accept the details of death and silence. He condemns Velutha, which Estha will remember for the rest of his life.

Response: Estha now understood his own advice stated in an earlier quote. He carried on his response to the inspector for the rest of his life.

“‘Ammu,’ Chacko said, his voice steady and deliberately casual, ‘is it at all possible for you to prevent your washed-up cynicism from completely coloring everything.’”

Where: Ch.2

Significance: The tension within this family is very clear in this quote. Their family is together but in actuality it is broken physically and emotionally. The origin of Chacko and Ammu’s relationship is shown here, which the narrator reflects on.

Response: After Chacko says this, the rest of the family remains silent as they are shocked and afraid to continue on the conversation. Rahel recognizes that her family is troubled, agreeing that they are “washed-up”.

“A cold moth with unusually dense dorsal tufts landed lightly on Rahel’s heart. Where its icy legs touched her, she got goosebumps. Six goosebumps on her careless heart. A little less her Ammu loved her.”

Where: Ch.4

Significance: Pappachi’s moth is a significant symbol as it is mentioned several types, especially by Rahel whenever there is a moment of sadness. Pappachi’s moth originally symbolizes the disappointment of life as Pappachi lost all credibility and his life was ruined by this “discovery”.

Response: Rahel felt this whenever she felt like Ammu did not love her, and that is how the rest of their relationship was like throughout the book. Ammu was described as a hurt mother.

Character Analysis - Estha

Estha’s Character and Love

Arundhati Roy wrote The God of Small Things for many reasons, some political and some social. It is clear in the novel that the idea of love is very important to her. In almost every aspect of the novel, love ties in some way. We see this idea in the way the characters interact with each other (there are many different types of relationships) and in the background for the novel, such as the political issue of touchables and untouchables in India. Specifically, Roy includes characters like Esthappen Yako (Estha) to represent and idea about love, and Estha’s character represents half of the idea of love, which Rahel is the other half. The type of love represented in this novel cannot really be defined because it’s a love that transcends all cultures and time, which may also be why the book does not follow a chronological order.

The complementarity of Estha and Rahel is intentionally designed to emphasize the two halves of love. The idea of fraternal twins representing love is very unorthodox, but makes sense due to their perfect complementarity. Throughout the novel the two are seen together, but when they are apart the terrible emptiness they feel is clear. “The emptiness in one twin was only a version of quietness in the other” (Roy 21). It is evident that the relationship Estha and Rahel feel is necessary to each other’s beings, and ties in to the idea that Estha represents only one half of love. When Estha and Rahel are together they are whole, and together they represent a love that is complete. Even Ammu, the twins’ mother, realizes that Estha and Rahel depend on each other in a complex and internal way. Ammu says, “‘Promise me you’ll always love each other,’ she’d say, as she drew her children to her. ‘Promise,’ Estha and Rahel would say. Not finding words with which to tell her that for them there was no Each, no Other” (Roy 214-215). The way the twins feel as though they are one is evidence of their representing love.

            Throughout the novel and from the scenes that describe Estha, the audience comes to think of Estha as a kind, innocent, and methodical boy. He also takes initiative, and this can be seen in the way he feels protective over Rahel, how he is the one to decide that Sophie Mol, Rahel, and he should run away, and how he is the one to row the boat across the river. It is also clear that Estha is deeply disturbed after being molested by the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man. This incident sticks with Estha for all of his life, and part of the reason he is so deeply disturbed is because molestation is a violation of innocence and love, two things that Estha helps represent in the novel. Because his character represents the more practical and serious type of love, contrary to Rahel to acts more on emotion, the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man completely changes Estha’s world of order and innocence. After Estha is molested he starts to feel sick and goes to the bathroom with Ammu and tries to vomit. “Estha convulsed, but nothing came. Just thoughts”(Roy 103). The sickness and disgust Estha feels shows that this type of thing is so foreign and terrible to him, as it should be, and he is trying to vomit almost as if he’s trying to get the experience out of him, an experience that violates love and innocence.

Roy sets the background of the story with political issues in India. In particular, the idea of Touchables and Untouchables is repeated throughout the novel, and the issue evolves with the story. The forbidden love between Ammu and Velutha contrasts the traditional and sacred rule that Touchables and Untouchables should not touch, let alone love each other. Roy also challenges the idea of “love laws” with the love between Rahel and Estha. Although Roy is not necessarily stating that she believes a love between brother and sister that goes beyond family love is right, the idea is that love should have no rules, and Estha’s character supports and represents this idea. Roy describes the moment between Rahel and Estha by saying, “only that once again they broke the Love Laws. That lay down who should be loved. And how. And how much” (Roy 311).  The “Love Laws” show that the idea of love has been lost. That there are rules for loving someone, when there should not be. In this scene Estha, who has stopped talking altogether, communicates with love because that is the only way he knows how.

The God of Small Things says a lot about love and how love should and should not be viewed. By using characters such as Estha to represent the idea of love and that love delicate but strong and should not have rules, Roy can convey her message more clearly by having such a character that develops throughout the novel. Even those Rahel does represent the other half of love, we can see clearly in Estha the effects of certain situations, like the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, and through his personality the clear representation of an idea of love.