Simmons 1 Lauren Simmons Dr. Karen C.

Holt ENG 251 5 December 2013 Formalist Analysis on Interpreter of Maladies I chose to do my literary analysis on Jhumpa Lahiris Interpreter of Maladies. The literary theory that I chose to use in my analysis was with the Formalist lens, which is from Ann B. Dobies book Theory into Practice. According to Dobie, Emphasizing close reading of the work itself, formalism puts the focus on the text as literature. It does not treat the text as an expression of social, religious, or political ideas; neither does it reduce the text to being a promotional effort for some cause or belief. As a result, formalism makes those who apply its principles and follow its processes better, more discerning readers (Dobie 33). The formalist question I chose to ask for this analysis was What are the important symbols within the story? This story has both obvious symbols as well as symbols that dont stand out until it has been read through multiple times. There are three distinctive symbols that are apparent throughout the story: Mr. Das camera, Mrs. Das puffed rice, and the monkeys. Mr. Das camera represents the fact that he is unable to see the reality of his life and actually be a part of it. Since he sees everything through the lens of his camera, he doesnt see what is wrong in his marriage and doesnt truly enjoy his visit to India. An example of his inability to see the reality of things is when he asked Mr. Kapasi to stop the car so that he can take a picture of a barefoot man, his head wrapped in a dirty turban, seated on top of a cart of grain sacks pulled by a pair of bullocks(Lahiri 412). Mr. Das wants to take this picture simply because he wants it as a souvenir of his trip to India. What he doesnt realize since he is only

Simmons 2 thinking of the picture is the fact that the man is a person himself who is in obvious need of help and who is living in poverty. The reality of the mans life is obscured to Mr. Das because of his camera. Another example of Mr. Das inability to see reality is when he is trying to convince Mrs. Das to come with the rest of the family to the dwellings so that they can take a family picture for their Christmas card. In Chris Bensons analysis of this story, he touches on Mr. Das obsession with his camera. Obsessed with his camera, Mr. Das misses out on his vacation because he peers at it only through a camera lens. In Kapasis view, neither of the Das parents seems at all Indian in their interaction with their childrenKapasi notices that the Das family, including the parents, were all like siblings, suggesting their customs differ significantly from those practiced in India(Benson 3). Mr. Das uses his camera in order to falsely portray his family as one of unity and happiness. He fails to notice the fact that his family is quite the opposite. His marriage is falling apart and his children are out of control and disobedient. He believes that by taking a family picture they can create an imaginary picture perfect family that doesnt really exist. Mrs. Das puffed rice, which is bland and isnt nutritious, represents her personality. She doesnt seem to care for anyone other than herself. She is disconnected with her family and doesnt understand that the consequences to her decisions may at times hurt those around her. The saying you are what you eat applies very well to Mrs. Das in this case. In Robert A. Moraces analysis of this story, he says: However, when Mrs. Das, whose own marriage is none too happy, tells Mr. Kapasi of her secret symptoms-the child fathered by another man, the terrible urges to throw things away- he proves inadequate, even insulted that Mrs. Das should ask him to interpret her common, trivial little secret. Failing to understand the depth of her despair, he responds in a way that serves as the ironic measure of his own failures of nerve and

Simmons 3 compassion. Is it really pain you feel, Mrs. Das, or is it guilt?(Morace 3). Through this he shows how her personality is in actuality a lot like the puffed rice because of how empty she is inside. At the end of the story, after Bobbys encounter with the monkeys because of her actions, she says, God, lets get out of herethis place gives me the creeps(Lahiri 424). Even though her son just got hurt because of her carelessness with the rice, Mrs. Das doesnt take responsibility for it. It is the same with her affair. She doesnt acknowledge the fact that she made a big mistake and doesnt think about the affect it will have on her son if he ever knows the truth. Her mistake doesnt just hurt herself, it hurts her own son as well, and it shows her immaturity and selfishness that she thinks this way. The last symbol that I noticed in the story was the monkeys. They represent human desire. When left alone and unprovoked, the monkeys are harmless. But once they are bothered, or in the case of this story, given food, that is when they become a problem. It is the same with human desire. Consequences dont become a problem until one acts on or gives into their desires. In the story, Mr. Kapasi says, They are more hungry than dangerousdo not provoke them with food, and they will not bother you (Lahiri 419). This can be related to Mrs. Das affair. She acted carelessly, not thinking about what she was doing or what the consequences of it would be. Her choice to have an affair doesnt just affect her. Rather, it affects her son, Bobby, who was conceived because of this affair. If or when he ever finds out about the truth, he will be hurt from it just like he was hurt because of his mothers carelessness with the rice around the monkeys. At the end of the story, I think that it was symbolic for the monkeys to surround Bobby rather than Mrs. Das. Because Mrs. Das was careless with her rice and spilled it on the ground, it

Simmons 4 attracted the monkeys and resulted in her son getting hurt. This represents her carelessness in giving into human desire, which caused the birth of her son. Her mistake can potentially hurt her son if he ever finds out that Mr. Das isnt his real father, even though he isnt the one in the wrong. By looking at this story through a Formalist lens, I was able to read the story closely and was able to focus on the text as literature that has meaning behind its words. After finding the symbolism within the story, it made much more sense to me, and I was able to enjoy the story more because of it.

Simmons 5 Works Cited Benson, Chris. Interpreter of Maladies. Masterplots II: short Story Series, Revised Edition (2004): 1-3. MagillOnLiterature Plus. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. Dobie, Ann b. Theory into Practice. 3rd ed. Eds. Jillian DUrso, Erin Bosco, Rebecca Donahue, and Janine Tangney. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. 33-50. Print. Lahiri, Jhumpa. Interpreter of Maladies. Literature: A Portable Anthology. 3rd ed. Eds. Janet E. Gardner, Beverly Lawn, Jack Ridl, and Peter Schakel. Boston: Bedford: Bedford/St. Martins, 2013. 407-424. Print. Morace, Robert A. Jhumpa Lahiri. Critical survey of Short Fiction, Second Revised Edition (2001): 1-3. MagillOnLiterature Plus. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.