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.