A Series of Dreary Theories on Lahiri

OR: Please respond with Queries

I would like to start by saying that all of the blog posts I read were very thought-provoking. Well played, Nightside Crowd.

One of the posts in particular, however, spurred me to post in response because it made a point about the stories that I didn’t quite catch. Alex’s post made a number of really cool points about the interconnectivity of Lahiri’s stories through the idea of marriage, and the cultural differences between Indian and American concepts of matrimony. Alex brought up the fact that in each of the four stories we read, marriage was a central issue, and that each story looked at different issues about marriage and from different perspectives. I think this is an excellent way of looking at this group of four stories in particular.

Alex’s conclusion that the marriages in Lahiri’s stories are “a necessary aspect of life, something needed in order to live happily and feel fulfilled” shocked me because in reading the stories, I saw a lot of negativity surrounding the marriages in IoM. There was a miscarriage that led to two people falling out of love, a secret infidelity that spawned a child, an implied incestuous+adulterous rape that spawned another child, and an arranged wedding between two strangers that turned out to be the healthiest marriage in the book. My opinion on reading the stories was that marriage was the cause of a lot of emotional strain and conflict, and in many cases can ruin people’s lives.

So I went back and re-read some of the parts of the stories that Alex pointed out to see if I was just jaded and completely missed the point. I wanted to try to read the marriages as positive, and see if the stories could end happily ever after. And I found out that, yes, you could read the stories and think “these characters had their problems, but they are going to work through them and be better off in the long run. I guess love conquers all.” There is enough left up to the reader in Lahiri’s stories to draw conclusions as different as “marriage is hell” and “marriage is bliss.” Personally, I think I will stick with my view that marriage is ugly, stressful, complicated, painful, and licenses should only be given to people who go through a screening process as rigorous as the FBI’s. Maybe (okay, likely) ((okay definitely)) it stems from my experience writing settlement demands for a divorce lawyer, but I firmly believe people like this should be forbidden to marry:

I guess the point I’m trying to fit into this rambling anti-marriage tirade is that Lahiri’s stories are so simple and yet so deep, that sentimentalists like Alex and cynics like me can both enjoy them. The beauty of Lahiri’s stories lies in their interpretation.

…of maladies.