“Female Subjects and Negotiating Identities in Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies”

    In “Female Subjects and Negotiating Identities in Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies” by Bahareh Bahmanpour, the author talks about several stories from the book Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri. Bahmanpour focuses on the female protagonists of the stories rather than the males. The author seeks to find out why Lahiri projects woman in her writing the way she does. Bahmanpour shows the differences between each character and the similarities as well. Bahmanpour separates each story and then talks about it and why it’s significant and how each woman is portrayed in each of the stories. This is helpful because it gives a deeper sense of what Lahiri is trying to say about Indian woman. The readers can get a better sense of the purpose of each story.

"This Blessed House"

    The short story “This Blessed House” by Jhumpa Lahiri is about a newly married couple. They are settling into their new home when Twinkle, the wife, starts finding different Christian objects of worship. Sanjeev, the husband, finds himself to hate these artifacts because “[they’re] not Christian,” (137).
     I find Twinkle to be a very interesting character. At the beginning of the story, she seems to be very obedient, in some sort. She just goes along with whatever Sanjeev says and doesn’t put up much of a fight. Then, when Sanjeev tells her that he’s going to throw the Virgin Mary they found in the yard away, Twinkle finally stands up to him and wins. I think this is significant because Sanjeev realizes that Twinkle will stand up for something she believes in and that he can’t just control her.
    I also found Twinkle very interesting because of her fondness of these Christian objects. She curious about them but she’s also grown a bit attached to the collection of them. To me, it kind of seems as though she doesn’t really care much about her own religion. When Sanjeev points out to her that they are not Christian, she replies to him, “We’re good little Hindus,” (137). This sarcastic comment, to me, showed that Twinkle may not really take her religion serious. I just found it fascinating because Hindus are usually very devout and all about their religion and culture.

Negotiating Borders of Culture: Jhumpa Lahiri’s Fiction

In Negotiating Borders of Culture: Jhumpa Lahiri’s Fiction by Debarati Bandyopadhyay, the author talks about different works of Jhumpa Lahiri and how cultural borders are a main theme in her writing. Bandyopadhyay explains that Lahiri refers to the differences between India and America and their cultures, of course. In the beginning, Bandyopadhyay gives a brief history of Lahiri’s achievements and then she continues by giving a short description of what she’s going to address. In this case, Bandyopadhyay talks about “culture as a homogenization of the good…”(97). Bandyopadhyay also mentions different works of Lahiri’s and how they all seem to follow the same theme. Then, Bandyopadhyay describes all the different situations of cultural borders that Lahiri’s characters face throughout her work. I think this article will help me understand Lahiri’s book more because I now know what the purpose was for the book and what the author is trying to say. Bandyopadhyay states that “[Lahiri] occupies [a] privileged space in-between two countries, two continents, two cultures, and this multiplicity of perspectives…” (108) which shows that Lahiri uses what she knows most and it works for her writing.


Bandyopadhyay, Debarati. “Negotiating Borders of Culture: Jhumpa Lahiri’s Fiction.” Journal of Literature, Culture and Media Studies 7.1 (2009): 98-108. Web.

Lahiri, When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine

I found “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” by Jhumpa Lahiri to be an interesting story. It’s about a little girl, Lilia, and her parents who invite Mr. Pirzada over for dinner every night. Lilia and her family are Indian and even though Mr. Pirzada is from a different place then them, Lilia doesn’t quite understand how he is different from them, as her father says he is. Lilia is the most interesting character to me. She’s an American and she just doesn’t understand how physical borders can affect someone. Every night when Mr. Pirzada goes over to Lilia’s house, he and her father watch the news and her father makes Lilia watch it with them. She isn’t aware of all the bad going on in the world until then. While Lilia is learning about the American Revolution and celebrating Halloween, Pakistan is about to go to war. In America, the bad in the world is seemed to be hidden from the children. When Lilia and her friend are in the library working on a report, she decides to look up a book about Pakistan and when her teacher finds her reading this, she seems quite upset, like she didn’t want Lilia knowing things about a whole different world. These two borders and cultures prove to be more different than Lilia could ever know.

Lahiri, Jhumpa. Interpreter of Maladies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1999. Print.

Nineteen Thirty Seven

In Nineteen Thirty Seven by Edwidge Danticat tells a story about a mother and a daughter going through a rough time. The mother, Manman, is in prison because she is suspected of being some kind of witch and criminal (Danticat 39). The daughter, Josephine, goes to visit her mother about once a week and tells about their past. Throughout the story, Josephine takes her mother the Madonna, a little statue that means a lot to the both of them. I found the Madonna to be very interesting because it seems to play a big role of both of these characters lives. Josephine takes the Madonna to her mother everytime she visits her and every time, Manman holds it close to her chest for the entire time Josephine is there. Another reason it seemed important was because when the lady visits Josephine to tell her of her mothers death, one of the questions that is asked to the woman is about the Madonna which indicates that the woman who visited the river along with Manman and Josephine know about it as well. To me, I think the Madonna symbolizes hope and safety to Manman. When Manman knows that she is dying, the last visit that Josephine makes to the prison, she tells her daughter to keep the Madonna “when [she is] completely gone” because she believes that “maybe [Josephine] will have someone to take [her] place” (Danticat 43). Manman is depending on the Madonna to watch over Josephine when she’s gone and to keep her safe as well. I found it very interesting that it would be and item of religious worth. I think even though the Haitian woman were treated poorly, they still found a way to believe in something other than reality, something good. 

Danticat, Edwidge. Krik? Krak!. NY: Vintage Books, 1995. 31-49. Print.

Landscape, Memory and Survival in the Fiction

    In “Landscape, Memory and Survival in the Fiction of Edwidge Danticat,” Elvira Pulitano talks about an assortment of writings by Edwidge Danticat and what each writing represents. Pulitano explains that most of Danticat’s writing is about the trials and horrendous experiences on the islands. Danticat also focuses a lot on her home, Haiti, in her writing as well. Danticat talks about all the horrible things that Haitians have had to endure throughout the years. Pulitano uses many different stories by Danticat and other Haitian authors to explain the ideas of borders and how they affect the people who live on them. I think by reading this journal, I will better understand Danticat’s Krik? Krak! because now I have a better understanding of Danticat and the ideas that encompass her writings. Pulitano references on story from Krik? Krak! in particular, Nineteen Thirty-Seven. It talks about the events that happen in the story and how these events affect the protagonist and her view of “history”. By reading this, I will be able to fully comprehend what the author was trying to say in Nineteen Thirty- Seven and the message she was trying to convey. Throughout the article, readers gain a better understanding of Danticat and why she writes about what she does.


Pulitano, Elvira. “Landscape, Memory and Survival in the Fiction of Edwidge Danticat.” Anthurium:  A Caribbean Studies Journal 6.2 (2008): 1-20. Web.

"Toughest Indian In the World"

“The Toughest Indian in the World” by Sherman Alexie, the author uses metaphors such as salmon and the “toughest indian in the world” (29). Alexie uses the salmon when the narrator is talking about his dad. He says that his “father never taught [him] about hope” (21). I think what the narrator’s father was trying to say was that they can’t show hope because that makes them vulnerable if they are let down.  It’s better to be tough and strong than emotionally weak. That’s where the “toughest indian in the world” comes in because even though the author uses the phrase to describe the actual fighters, I think the narrator could very well be “the toughest indian in the world” because he was taught to not be emotionally fragile. He was always taught that he had to be tougher than the white men in the white world he lives in. He learned, from his father, “to be silent in the presence of white people” because they wanted them just to go away (22). I think the whole story has to do with the fact that the Indians live in a white world where they have to assimilate to white customs. The whole point of the story is that the narrator feels lost in the white world. At the end, when he “[traveled] upriver toward the place where [he] was born…”, he’s finding his way back to his culture (34).

Alexie, Sherman. The Toughest Indian in the World. First Edition. New York: Grove/Atlantic, Inc., 2000. 21-34. Print.

Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset- Hans Rosling

In the lecture, “Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset” Hans Rosling uses his own data to challenge different myths about the “Developing World” and why they should be challenged. 

Rosling’s students had preconceptions about “we” and “them”, which in their words meant the Western World and the Developing World. They said that they learned it in college. THe students basically said that the larger your family, the shorter your life expectancy and visa versa. When Rosling separates all the regions into countries, Africa seems to all the stay around the same place, poor. As for the other countries, most of them seem to be spread out along the chart. And then you have the U.S. and that tends to stay at the top of the chart. When he zeros in on specific countries like that, the results change dramatically because the different countries have different advancements and such. Money, of course, has everything to do with this. All of the data that Rosling is exhibiting helps challenge assumptions such as the fact that war is the cause of disease. It’s necessary to challenge them because things aren’t always what they seem. To make something better, we must first understand everything about it, even what we all think may be true. When good data is collected, we are more able to understand what it is that we are studying. 

Rosling ends by saying that the world isn’t one of the “western world” and the “developing world” but more so of a converging world except for the bottom billion. The bottom billion is just as poor as they’ve always been.

Rosling, Hans. “Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset.” TED Talks, 2009. Web. 

"Class"- Sherman Alexie

In Class by Sherman Alexie, I chose to focus on Edgar Eagle Runner, the main character in the story. This character is very observant, to an almost crazy stage. He notices every detail about every room he’s in, every place he’s gone, and everything he’s done. First off, when Eagle Runner is talking about how he met his wife, he mentions that “she was the tenth most attractive white woman in the room” which exhibits the fact that he payed close attention to everyone who was in the room especially to have noticed that she was the tenth (Alexie 37). Another thing he mentions, with great detail, later in the story is all the things he did in the first two years of his marriage with his wife such as “thirty-seven cocktail parties, eighteen weddings, one divorce, seven Christmas parties, two New Year’s Eve parties…” (Alexie 42). It seems to me that Eagle Runner pays so much attention to detail because he’s just bored with his life. He’s an American Indian but he’s a lawyer and he’s upper class, or at least he pretends to be. He doesn’t necessarily live his life to enjoy it but more because he has to. It seems that he just goes though the motions of living day after day. He seems to have lost who he is in his attempt to live his boring, non eventful life. The attention to detail of the character sort of contradicts the lack of detail in his everyday life. 

Alexie, Sherman. The Toughest Indian In the World. 1st ed. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1966. 35-56. Print.

Responding to Student Writing

In “Responding to Student Writing” by Nancy Sommers, she talks about the importance teacher’s comments on students writings and how they need to encourage revising. Another thing that Sommers touches on is that most teachers write vague comments that could pertain to anyone’s paper and because of that students tend to get confused on what they're supposed to do to their paper. Sommer’s main argument is that comments from the teacher are supposed to help “show [the students] through [the teachers] comments why new choices would positively change their texts” for the better (346). 

Comments are important for writers because it shows some kind of guidance for the paper and it also gives the writer a view from the reader’s standpoint. Comments help the writer to see questionable composition that they are otherwise blind to. Sommers thinks that teachers tend to take the text away from the student in a sense that they stop focussing on what the teacher wants them to fix rather than continuing to think about what their purpose was in the first place. Sommers calls this appropriating the text. I would definitely agree with Sommers on this point because I’ve been in the situation where the teacher gave me very vague instructions. It’s sort of like a guessing game and by that time, I was focused on fixing what I was told to fix that I didn’t even realize what I was writing about anymore. 

Sommers states that teachers always correct grammar and give generic comments more than anything and that they aren’t useful in any way. Every paper and writer is different and using generic comments such as “needs thesis statement” or “use more detail” doesn’t help a student much because it could mean anything. As for spending time on grammar, it’s also a waste of time especially if it’s just the first draft. Sommers says that teachers need to start giving comments that are appropriate for the text that the student is writing. If it’s the first draft, there’s no need to spend time on grammar because that sentence that was supposed to be fixed might not even be in the paper at the end. 

I would say that I have to agree with Sommers in all points that she makes because I’ve written papers before and I’ve gotten comments from teachers and they do all of the things that Sommers says are not the best way to comment. I relate to being confused by the vague comments teachers leave and it’s not helpful at all. 

Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication 33.2 (1982): 148-156. Web. 

Lea Ramsdell

In “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States,” by Lea Ramsdell, she talks about three different autobiographies by Richard Rodriguez, Ariel Dorfman and Gloria Anzaldua and how their views on their different language differ from one another. Ramsdell states the differences in how each author feels differently about their multilingual cultures. Ramsdell states that “Language is identity and identity is political in the beginning of her essay. The way I understood it was that our language, the way each of us speak, is a part of who we are. Our language defines a big part of our identity and depending one how we speak, we are all categorized in different groups and different classes as well. People who speak the same language, tend to have the same ideas and think similarly to each other therefore, our languages and identities become political.

In all three of these autobiographies, language probably plays the main role. Every one of these authors main objective was that their linguistic background had an impact on their life and made them who they are as people. For all three of the authors, language defines who they are as people. Whether they want to be viewed as Spanish speaking Americans or English speaking Chicanos, language characterizes their originality. 

Rodriguez was, in a way, forced into speaking English. His first language was Spanish and when his parents forced him to speak only English, he was a bit upset. For him, English and Spanish were on “opposite poles” (Ramsdell 169) and they couldn’t be combined. Each language meant something different to him. As for Dorfman, he sees each language as “competing for his loyalty” (Ramsdell 169). Dorfman thinks of each language as two languages that don’t go together. He wrote the same book twice, once in English and once in Spanish, which shows the respect he has for both languages. Then, you have Anzaldua who’s opinion is the exact opposite that both of the other two authors. She wanted to speak both languages and she didn’t care what anyone would say. Anzaldua’s relationship with her language is that she loves it and to her, it’s who she is. She doesn’t want to get rid of either side of it. Rodriguez and Dorfman both believe that it’s one or the other. Spanish and English are completely different and it can’t be both of them. Anzladua, on the other hand, believes that she can have both languages and use them simultaniously because she is both of them. Both languages describe who she is as a person and she can’t bear the idea of having to separate them. 

I would say that I agree with Ramsdell because language is who we are. Slang and proper language all define us at people. The way one speaks also defines where they came from, their cultural background, and those who speak similarly, think similarly and have the same morals and ideas. Language is also political in that sense. Again, the political side of language goes back to discourse communities and how each community has a different way of speaking and interacting with each other. 

Ramsdell, Lea. “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States.” Journal of Modern Literature 28.1 (2004): 166-76. Web.  

Anzaldua, Chapter 7

In chapter 7 of  “La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a New Consciousness,” by Gloria Anzaldua, the author explains what it’s like to be a mestiza, a multiracial woman, in an Anglo driven world. Anzaldua wants the reader to believe that even though she is biracial and woman, that she is not inferior to those around her. She is just as capable as anyone to change the world and the ignorance in the world. 

Anzaldua uses quite a bit of metaphors in her writing. One significant metaphor was the physical border that divides the United States with Mexico. For Anzaldua, the physical border symbolizes the boundaries that she feels she is held to because of her cultural issues. She is caught between two extremely different cultures which is like being on the border of different countries. They may be so close to one another but yet, they still seem to be very different and have very different beliefs. Because Anzaldua has many different cultures, she feels she doesn’t belong anywhere specific because she’s different than those who may not be biracial. 

Anzaldua also mentions that she has a mestiza consciousness. The mestiza consciousness is “the idea of dualistic thinking.” Having a mestiza consciousness helps see things for more than one point of view. It helps her see problems from different sides which in turn, can help her solve certain issues. She also believes that embracing this consciousness helps one because you’re not stuck in just one way of thinking. You have more of a mix of ideas. It helps you also because you know who you are, ironically, because you have to fight more to be yourself. You have to learn to love who you are because not everyone is going to like you. 

I would have to agree with Anzaldua because although I am not biracial, I am a minority. I’m hispanic and a lot of the times people don’t think you are capable of doing the same things they are because you don’t come from the same background as them. Anzaldua is different is so many ways and she learns to embrace them because her distinctions are what set her mind apart from others.

David Bartholomae- "Inventing the University"

In“Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae, the author talks about how a beginner writer becomes an expert writer. Bartholomae is saying the a writer needs to learn how to communicate with his audience effectively and learn to speak their language and learn to change their language depending on who the audience is when he states that the author has to “invent the university”. Batholomae talks about what it takes to become an expert writer and what writers do wrong to make them perceived as a beginner. He ways that beginner writers tend to slip in their language. Expert writers write as if they are equal to the person who is reading it and continue that language thorough the writing. Whereas, beginners can start off that way but tend to switch and make it seem as a student writing to a teacher or someone superior. An expert writer knows what kind of language to use and when to use. They also know how to keep the same language going throughout a piece. Beginning writers may not be aware that they are supposed to use a specific language therefore, they tend to slip throughout. Bartholomae also says that beginning writers don’t know much about “common places” or how they are used in writing. A “common place” is our opinion which we must always elaborate on and defend when we are writing something. 

Bartholomae says that if teachers were to let their students write as if they were their colleagues instead of their students more often, then students would believe that they were equal rather that just students writing to a teacher who is obviously more educated on a subject that they are. 

I have to agree with Bartholomae because as a student, I would consider myself a beginner writer and when I write, I don’t take into consideration who my audience is all the time. I just write because I have to write. I also think that if us, students, were taught more that our ideas mattered and that out teachers valued our knowledge we’d be able to write more scholarly papers. Bartholomae has valid points in his papers such as knowing our “common places” and knowing our audience as well. 

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” 1986. Web. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~catonell/documents/D.Bartholomae.pdf