Namesake

Jhumpa Lahiri
Jhumpa Lahiris debut novel The Namesake has been highly praised by critics, including Christopher Tilghman from The Washington Post who described it as, a fine novel from a superb writer. It was well received by readers as well, quickly becoming a best seller for the Pulitzer Prize winning author who was born in London but was raised in America where she has spent most of her life. In interview, the author has that while she has drawn on her own family experience, the book is not autobiographical. It is however, the world of second generation migrants that lies at the core of the novel which charts three decades of the Ganguli family as the newlyweds try to forge a new life for themselves and raise a family in a foreign country. It is a familiar, immigration experience theme but Lahiri is able to rise above the typical clichd storyline and bring her tale of cultural estrangement to life. Different notions of belonging meld complex issues relating to cultural disorientation and adaptation. Experiential knowledge from the authors own upbringing and those of family and friends is used to give credibility to what is portrayed, highlighting the emotional struggle faced by migrants. Compromise colours the assimilation process of the novels young couple, juxtaposition used as an effective method to foreground the different reactions people can have to cross-cultural migration. Whereas Ashima, the young and pregnant wife feels homesick and utterly displaced, her ambitious husband welcomes the challenge of new opportunities. Despite Ashokes decision to leave family and homeland behind, a powerful rootedness to their Indian culture remains for both of them. They become part of a Bengali expatriate clich, drawn together by their cultural ties, "They all come from Calcutta, and for this reason alone they are friends." Jhumpa Lahiri has the storytellers genius for evoking setting and atmosphere and for engaging her reader in the minutiae of the fictive world being created on the page. Her simple but evocative prose style captures time, place and character with razor-sharp clarity. The focus is on family rather than landscape and so while relationships are finely detailed, scenery is bluntly described, Trees stand like spears, dried copper leaves from the previous season still clinging to a few of the branches. Recurring motifs such as the namesake title of the book link the different characters, places and events depicted throughout the book. Food also serves as another linking device that helps develop atmosphere while emphasising the culture clash that underpins much of narrative. The thirty year timeframe is largely depicted in the present tense which lends immediacy and drama to the life of this Americanised Bengali family. We are drawn into their world through a deft control of dialogue and detail. We engage and empathise with characters brought to life via access provided by the novelist to their thoughts and emotions. We identify with their uncertainty and struggle to define themselves.

Themes
Names and Identity The link between names as labelling devices and identity becomes a driving theme in the narrative. The impact of the namesake linked to the books title is both positive and negative, fused to the journey of understanding all the key characters undertake in their search for legitimate perceptions of personal and social identity. Critics have pointed out the links between self-esteem and the sense of namelessness, misnaming and renaming as well as anonymity. Within the Indian context of the novel, names become loaded, emotional terms, signifiers for complex family and cultural relationships. As the author has stated in interviews: all the Bengalis I know personally, especially those living in India, have two names, one public, one private. It's always fascinated me. I'm like Gogol in that my pet name inadvertently became my good name. ..To this day many of my relatives think that it's both odd and inappropriate that I'm known as Jhumpa in an official, public context. Names are not mere labels, but points of connection in a process of finding true identity. The dichotomy between pet name/good name within Indian culture becomes an emotional minefield for the novels protagonist. As the author has commented, this distinction between the two names that are given becomes a metaphorical device for exploring the experience of growing up as the child of immigrants, having a divided identity, divided loyalties and so on. The subtle distinctions associated with these two names helps develop our understanding of the difficulties associated with the migrant experience across two generations. For Ashima and Ashoke, the move from India to America represents a culture shock in many ways, including the ways names are used to signify filial and cultural belonging. Names signify different things in both cultures as does the public demonstration of emotions. From her cultural perspective, Ashima is shocked by the free and easy way, names are voiced in America. In India, they are loaded with meaning, tokens of social inter-connectedness, Like a kiss or caress in a Hindi movie, a husbands name is something intimate and therefore unspoken. Such an idea is utterly foreign to Western cultures as is the idea of arranged marriages whereby, It was only after the betrothal that shed learned his name. For the young, pregnant wife who opens the novel, the social taboos of misusing someones name remain after thirty years residence, resulting in her refusing, even in death, to utter her husbands name. The process of choosing an appropriate babies name becomes an effective way of cultural comparison within the novel. The Indian way requiring traditional reverence and customary procedures to be followed is presented in the opening section of the novel; the American way shown by friends openly discussing different options without any strict protocols, is shown towards the end. Within Bengali families, individual names are sacred, inviolable. They are not meant to be inherited or shared. Americans however often pass on names from one generation to the next. Names signify different things in each culture and this is shown by the different ways in which they are bestowed. Within an Indian context, two names are given, to represent an individuals private and public persona; Pet names are literally, the name by which one is called, by friends, family, and other intimates, at home and in other private, unguarded moments. Pet names are a persistent remnant of childhooda reminder that life is not

always so serious, so formal, so complicated..a reminder, too, that one is not all things to all people. Pet names have associated meanings for they are the names by which they are adored and scolded and missed and loved. Given the significance associated with naming Indian babies, Names can wait. In India parents take their time. It wasnt unusual for years to pass before the right name, the best possible name, was determined.Besides, there are always pet names to tide one over: a practice of Bengali nomenclature grants, to every single person, two names. Outside the home, other names are used, Every pet name is paired with a good name,for identification in the outside world. Two names are necessary to serve as two badges or markers of social inter-relationships or forms of belonging to those around you. To Ashoke, Gogols name carries deep significance, Gogol.the name stands not only for her sons life, but her husbands. This pet name mistakenly becomes his good name, which has meanwhile been lost somewhere en route from Calcutta. Gogol however comes to hate his name, not comprehending the significance it represents to his father and mother, seeing it only as a link to some obscure mad Russian author. It only emphasises his cultural difference to his peers whereas he years for exclusivity. His decision to switch his name as the easiest way to gain acceptance largely fails, because to everyone of importance in his life, he remains Gogol, fundamentally unchanged, except in title. Insight only comes after his fathers death, and his realisation that he cant and in fact no longer wants to reject his Indian heritage.

Alienation
Alienation functions on a number of levels in the novel across three decades, stressing the emotional and psychological problems faced by the Indian immigrant trying to assimilate into the American culture. It is associated with issues of exile, dislocation and culture clash; between the old and the new, the familiar and the strange. It is most painfully felt by Ashima for whom nothing feels normal in this foreign land. The process of adjustment demands compromise and sacrifice. At the beginning of the novel, Ashima, is terrified to raise a child in a country where she is related to no one, where she knows so little, where life seems so tentative. She feels disembodied, utterly without the normal support structures that are the norm within her culture. For her, being without, a single grandparent or parent or uncle or aunt at her side, the babys birth, like most everything else in America, feels somehow haphazard, only half true. The author has further clarified this sense of lost identity, when interviewed about her book, The way my parents explain it to me is that they have spent their immigrant lives feeling as if they are on a river with a foot in two different boats. Each boat wants to pull them in a separate direction, and my parents are always torn between the two. They are always hovering, literally straddling two worlds, and I have always thought of that idea, that metaphor, for how they feel, how they live. It must be an amazing experience in many ways, but it has a price. The process of adaptation from foreigner to integrated, American citizen, is a slow one, changes cumulating in subtle gradations of giving ground to old ways, attitudes and values. In The Namesake, it is described as a sort of lifelong pregnancy-a perpetual wait, a constant burden, a continuous feeling out of sorts. It is an ongoing responsibility, a parenthesis in what had once been ordinary life, only to discover that that previous life has

vanished, replaced by something more complicated and demanding. The novelist has commented in interview that the, question of identity is always a difficult one, but especially so for those who are culturally displaced, as immigrants are, or those who grow up in two worlds simultaneously, as is the case for their children. ..I think that for immigrants, the challenges of exile, the loneliness, the constant sense of alienation, the knowledge of and longing for a lost world, are more explicit and distressing than for their children. Food, lifestyle and even traditional festivities mark the process of giving ground, in the metamorphosis whereby cultural skin is shed and new markers are adopted, there are other ways in which Ashoke and Ashima give in. This process of assimilation, of re-enculturation becomes a force that is very difficult to resist. In many ways, for the migrant, the old world that has been left becomes atrophied as life moves on, metaphorically linked in the novel with old age and death, In some senses Ashoke and Ashima live the lives of the extremely aged, those for whom everyone they once knew and loved is lost, those who survive and are consoled by memory alone. Their old world becomes frozen in time, evident to Ashima when she suddenly finds herself a widow and now, lonely suddenly, horribly, permanently alone, and briefly.she sobs for her husband. She feels overwhelmed by the thought of the move she is about to make, to the city that was once home and is now in its own way foreign. In perhaps the greatest irony of the book, she realises that she, will miss the country in which she had grown to know and love her husband.

Generational Ties
The first part of the novel details the experiences of the migrant parents as they try to adapt to living in a new cultural landscape. What becomes a stronger narrative thread in the story however is the depiction of stresses that are associated with generational ties between migrant parents and their Americanized offspring. Filial bonds remain close but the author makes it clear that cultural tension also exist. This is a problem with second generation children as commented on by the author in her interview, the child of immigrants begins in a kind of nowhere place. She is firmly of America, but is not quite an American, in part because she is not recognized as such by others. The child may have privileges -- access to education, significant mobility but she still has to first discover and then adapt to American values and life-concepts, which are firmly resisted at home. She can buy herself the appropriate overcoat, but it is difficult to change the fact that the city remains cold. Identity and self-acceptance is a complex process, certainly not a metaphorical coat that can be put on and taken off according to whim. When ties to the country of origin remain strong, as it is in the case of the Gangulis who frequently travel home and at one time spend eight months in their homeland, the problem is compounded. The dichotomy between the two sets of traditions, social norms such as food, dress and other customs becomes more marked; the clash of cultures more pronounced. In a recent interview entitled, A Conversation with Jhumpa Lahiri, the author commented on this dilemma, the problem for the children of immigrants - those with strong ties to their country of origin - is that they feel neither one thing nor the other. This has been my experience, in any case. For example, I never know how to answer the question "Where are you from?" it bothered me growing up, the feeling that there was no single place to which I fully

belonged. Gogols moving away from his parents, in seeking a life separate from theirs might be interpreted as an exercise in cultural displacement: "he didnt want to go home on the weekends, to go with them to pujos and Bengali parties, to remain unquestionably in their world." A sense of exile permeates across generations, so that the children also need to go through a process of assimilation within both cultural worlds that they inhabit before they can really achieve a wholesome sense of belonging. Comparisons and choices need to be made, and allegiances struck in such cases of divided identities as that faced by Gogol. Personal, social and cultural aspects of identity can only be reconciled when the warring elements are faced and dealt with. As Lahiri states about her own experiences, I have never felt a strong affiliation with any nation or ethnic group. I always fell between the cracks of two cultures. Gogol goes this painful process of trying to bridge the gap between his cultural heritage and that of his adoptive country. When the final pages of the novel show him reading the novel written by his namesake there is the sense that he will be able to come to terms with the duality that is inherent in his identity.

Characterisation
Ashima Ashima wins our sympathy from the opening pages. The authors attention to detail, allows us to identify with her discomfort and confusion. Her efforts to cope with being a pregnant, migrant newlywed without the support of family win our empathy. The words I love you, sweetheart overheard in the maternity ward disorient her further for they represent, Words Ashima has neither heard nor expects to hear from her own husband; this is not how they are. Her arranged marriage means that her relationship with her husband only really develops on foreign shores, so that it is, Eight thousand miles away in Cambridge, she has come to know him. In that sense, it is childhood and adolescent memories and relationships that she keeps with her, maintained by letters, phone calls and visits but as she lives longer in America, each year that passes, tightens the grip on new memories and relationships. Traditions however still dictate her life for throughout her life, Ashima chooses to retain her native dress and cook and prepare Indian food. She also strives for the comfort of familiar customs where possible, especially in the first years of raising her infant. Her aching loneliness is lessened significantly by the arrival of her son but without anyone to talk to while her husband is at work, she finds security in the only world she knows. To put him to sleep, she sings him the Bengali songs her mother had sung to her. Time gradually heals the raw pain of her homesickness so that as she and her husband get their suburban house and their children grow up, they seem assimilated. To a casual observer, the Gangulis..appear no different from their neighbors but such integration is really only superficial because they remain part of a larger Bengali expatriate network that keeps their Indian culture alive. Many texts that explore the migrant alienation them show those who ache for their homelands flocking together, finding solace in those with whom they can converse in their native tongue and share memories and customs. Her greatest problems relate to Gogol who challenges his heritage and in particular

the name he has been given. Her daughter seems to cope much better than he does. He however perceives himself as different, feeling resentful about his name; frustrated and uneasy about not belonging, thinking his name only brings more attention to himself. She tries to explain, Its our way, GogolIts what Bengalis do but he increasingly wants less to do with what Bengalis do. Cultures have blended however, with her bending to pressure from her children and the media to celebrate in the American way, non Indian festivals such as Christmas. Losing her husband is a traumatic shock, and then the young woman tells her that the patient, Ashoke Ganguli, her husband, has expired.No, no, it must be a mistake. While his death has been foreshadowed by references to his stomach cramps, it still is a confronting turn of events for the reader. Her pain is palpable. For the whole of her adult life, she has been Mrs Ganguli and now she finds herself truly alone. Neither India nor America can now be home on a permanent basis because her children are more American than Indian and she too has become Americanised. The solution is to become a perpetual traveller between the two worlds she now has allegiance to. True to the meaning of her name, she will be without borders, without a home of her own, a resident everywhere and nowhere.

Ashoke - Father
To some extent, Gogols father remains a more enigmatic figure than his wife. We see him as a man of ambition and determination, willing to struggle hard to provide a better future for himself and his family. He seems less reliant on maintaining the outward trappings of his Indian identity by adopting Western dress about which he is fastidious. His cultural identity however is only superficially clothes for while considerate about his wifes condition, unlike the other expectant fathers in the Maternity hospital, it has never occurred to him to buy his wife flowers. He is depicted as an avid reader, fascinated by his grandfathers books, relishing the fact that he had been promised what, he had coveted them more than anything else in the world. He is a contemplative, scholarly man, whose close brush with death from the train accident has made him re-examine his life and his options. While he recovers from his horrendous injuries which leave him with a permanent limp, Ashoke began to envision another sort of future. He imagined not only walking, but walking away, as far as he could from the place in which he was born and in which he had nearly died. It becomes a cathartic moment in his life, a turning point that makes him choose to become a willing exile in another land. The accident is a powerful motif in the novel, literally and metaphorically haunting him throughout his life. He has kept it a private matter however, only his wife knowing what happened to him until he finally reveals it to Gogol not long before his unexpected heart attack. In this country, only your mother knows. And now you. Ive always meant for you to know, Gogol. The sensory imagery of the crash is well depicted, allowing the reader to picture the scene and get some sense of his fear; he has tried but failed to push these images away: the twisted, battered, capsized bogies of the train, his body twisted below it, the terrible crunching sound he had heard but not comprehended, his bones crushed as fine as four. It is not the memory of pain that haunts him; he has no memory of that. It is the memory of waiting before he was rescued, and the persistent fear, rising up in his throat, that he might not have been rescued at all. To this day he is claustrophobic.

He sees himself as having been given a second chance at life and the advice given to him by his fellow traveller convinces him that he is fated to turn his back on India and go abroad. His sitting up in his sleeping car reading Nikolai Gogol's "The Overcoat" while his fellow passengers slept, saved his life while they perished. While his wife deals with the trauma of alienation, he has other demons of his own to battle with, He was born twice in India, and then a third time, in America. Confiding this episode of his life to his son begins Gogols metamorphosis, making him see his father through new eyes. This moment of insight is enhanced by being phrased in present tense which makes it more immediate and dramatic. Gogol listens, stunned, his eyes fixed on his fathers profile. Though there are only inches between them, for an instant his father is a stranger, a man who has kept a secret, has survived a tragedy, a man whose past he does not fully know..Against instinct he tries to imagine life without his father, a world in which his father does not exist. Gogol becomes so self absorbed, recognises that he is who he is because of his family relationships and his upbringing. He sees himself as part of a unit, stronger because of shared understanding and experiences. Being admitted into his fathers confidence is a rite of passage so that his pet name now has a significance that he can finally understand. And suddenly the sound of his pet name, uttered by his father as he has been accustomed to hearing it all his life, means something completely new, bound up with a catastrophe he has unwittingly embodied for years. Is that what you think of when you think of me? Gogol asks him. Do I remind you of that night? His fathers response forges a new sense of belonging, of connectedness between them. He pauses before responding, ever careful over his choice of words, Not at all his father says eventually, You remind me of everything that followed.

Gogol
Gogols characterisation becomes the conduit through which the novelist explores the migrant experience and all it entails. It is largely through his perspective in the second half of the book that other characters are examined. We are told that he is a gifted child, successful at school and able to interact effectively with his peers, Gogol is an outstanding student, curious and cooperative, his teachers write. He is not shown being bullied or being targeted in any real sense but his anxiety about who and what he is in the eyes of others is never far below the surface. In many eyes he becomes representative of alienated cross-cultural youth; unhappy and disgruntled about his cultural background and the enforced duality of his identity. His Indian/American upbringing makes him feel insecure; uncertain about where he really belongs and feeling unable to feel entirely comfortable in either one. This uncertainty is heightened by perceptions of what he would like to be. His name becomes the fulcrum of simmering anger and his desire to escape and create a new identity for himself. On the visits home with his parents, he and his sister feel like tourists, existing on the periphery of an extended family, Gogol and Sonia know these people, but they do not feel close to them as their parents do. They are onlookers rather than participants in the way that their parents are. It is a cultural experience that cannot really be shared. Instead, they rally towards each other as points of normalcy in this outpost of difference, Of all the people who surround them at practically all times,

Sonia is his only ally, the only person to speak and sit and see as he does. This extended holiday becomes a sojourn to be endured, both children yearning to be back home while their parents dread being parted once more from the place they both still regard as home; And so the eight months are put behind them, quickly shed, quickly forgottenirrelevant to their lives. By the age of fourteen, Gogols resentment has worsened, hes come to hate questions pertaining to his name, hates having constantly to explain. In his efforts to fit in with his peers, his name has become an insignia of difference. The novelist makes clear in the text that he is the only one who seems most concerned about his strange Russian name, the only person who didnt take Gogol seriously, the only person who tormented him, the only person chronically aware of and afflicted by the embarrassment of his name, the only person who constantly questioned it and wished it were otherwise, was Gogol. For him however, it has taken on a life form of its own, becoming the cause of real psychological anxiety, At times his name, an entity shapeless and weightless, manages nevertheless to distress him physically. As he struggles to find his identity, it becomes the target of all his self-doubt, summing up both who he is but also what he wants most not to be, Gogol sounds ludicrous to his ears, lacking dignity or gravity. Increasingly, it becomes the scapegoat for all his woes during this period of maturation, I hate the name Gogol, he says. Ive always hated it. He even resents a teacher choosing the work of his namesake. The irony is that we, the reader know the significance of this Russian author whose stories were being read by his father the night of the train crash, To read the story, he believes, would mean paying tribute to his namesake, accepting it somehow. In some ways, the author makes him the face of disaffected youth, irritable and irreconcilable, "He hates that his name is both absurd and obscure, that it has nothing to do with who he is, that it is neither Indian nor American but of all things Russian. At College, he finally gets the opportunity to do something about his Indianness, to distance himself from what he sees as his parents Bengali immigrant culture. He didnt want to go home on the weekends, to go with them to pujos and Bengali parties, to remain unquestionably in their world and so he toys with the establishment of a new identity, He could have had an alternative identity, a B-side to the self. In an act of re-invention, he legally sheds his hated name and at eighteen becomes Nikhil, but the author stresses that this is something he does alone, No one accompanies him on this legal rite of passage. What he expects however does not eventuate for the mere changing of a name does not really alter either his personal or social identity. It is too simplistic a solution to his perceived problem, theres a snag: everyone he knows in the world still calls him Gogol. Adulthood and leaving home for study and work marks another stage in his quest to find a sense of belonging. Now out of the family home, he has more freedom to pursue his own interests and romantic relationships, testing his new name in different contexts, as if it is a mask he can adopt with those who have no connection to his Indian upbringing. His first two girlfriends are American, giving greater entry into their world although he distances them from his. Maxine has an enormous influence on him, virtually usurping his identity and melding it with that of her own family. The tempting entry into her affluent environment does not come without cost for, he is conscious of the fact that his immersion in Maxines family is a betrayal of his own. Her world is without pressure making him feel, free of expectation, of

responsibility, in willing exile from his own life. He compares and contrasts their world and that of his, noting that, Gerald and Lydia are secure in a way his parents will never be. He gravitates to Maxines unfettered existence, moving away from an acknowledgement that his family and cultural heritage has any lasting hold over him and the way he now chooses to live his life, It doesnt matter what they want. Eventually Maxine is invited to meet his parents, discomfort on both sides. His mother has gone to a great deal of trouble, wearing one of her better saris and preparing, a meal he knows it has taken his mother over a day to prepare, and yet the amount of effort embarrasses him. He finds no comfort in bring Maxine into his parents home, in comparing her indulgent lifestyle to the Gangulis much more modest existence. When the obligatory visit is over, he finds, Its a relief to be back in her world. The holiday he spends with Maxines family at her special place is a point of significant difference between the two families and the cultures they represent. He feels no nostalgia for the vacations hes spent with his family, and he realizes now that they were never really true vacations at all. Instead they were overwhelming, disorienting expeditions, either going to Calcutta, or sightseeing in places they did not belong to and intended never to see again. In stark contrast however, here at Maxines side, in this cloistered wilderness, he is free. News of his fathers death however shatters the growing complacency he had felt at moving from his familys world into the one that beckons with Maxine. It is her understated dismissal however of the Indian mourning of a loved one that forces a reconsideration of the value of what he is in the process of rejecting. Maxine has offered to go with him, but he has told her no. He doesnt want to be with someone who barely knew his father, whos met him only once. Having lost his father comes to represent having almost lost his Indian identity and in so doing, having almost lost a core part of himself. He finds the thought of his mothers grief confronting, recognising how overwhelming losing her husband will be. He is terrified to see his mother, more than he had been to see his fathers body in the morgue. The Bengali traditions and customs associated with mourning show reverence but also give comfort to those that remain behind. When Maxine offers escape from this, It might do you good.To get away from all this he finds what would previously have been seen as a lifeline is now no longer appealing, I dont want to get away. It has taken a disaster to draw him back, to make him realise that choices and decisions must be made rather than drifting. In a sense, his fathers death is linked with the disaster that has given him his name. It is as if the spell cast by Maxines world has been broken, that he has taken stock of what is really important so that within, a few months after his fathers death, he stepped out of Maxines life for good. His relationship with Moushumi Mazoomdar reunites him with his childhood and his Bengali upbringing. She rekindles a sense of belonging, of acceptance of his cultural heritage being an element of who he is. He comes to appreciate, from an adult perspective, things about his parents that he had never really understood when growing up. He wonders how his parents had done it, leaving their respective families behind, seeing them so seldom, dwelling unconnected, in a perpetual state of expectation, of longing. She echoes this idea in her appraisal of the migrant experience, Its the one thing about her parents lives she truly admires their ability, for better or for worse, to turn their back on their homes. For both of them, their marriage is a re-commitment to their Bengali background, a stepping back into

family expectations and an acceptance and compliance with certain traditions and customs such as those surrounding their marriage. Gogol, however much he loves his wife, begins to bridle at the new American friends she gravitates towards, groups and relationships where she seems perfectly at home but where he feels strangely out of place. Once more he does not feel accepted, as if he is still an outsider whereas she is one of the inner circle. When babies names becomes a topic of conversation as it often does, Gogol voices his opinion about the role names play, declaring, Theres no such thing as a perfect name. I think that human beings should be allowed to name themselves when they turn eighteen, he adds. Until then, pronouns. He is shocked when Moushumi reveals his own problems with his name, revealing what he believes should have been kept private. These parties foreshadow the division in their relationship as his wife begins to feel unsettled with life, seeking something which as yet she does not fully understand. He senses something is wrong, he looked at Moushumi and wondered what was wrong..more and more he sensed her distance, her dissatisfaction, her distraction. She begins an affair with Dimitri, a man from her past, a small, balding, unemployed middle-aged man who somehow answers a need in her that Gogol is unable to do. She meanwhile refers to him in conversation with her lover as my husband and wonders if she is the only woman in her family ever to have betrayed her husband, to have been unfaithful. Fearful that she may leave him, he is gladdened when she returns after a so-called conference, his heart leaps, unburdened of its malaise, grateful for her simple act of returning to him. When he learns the truth, he felt the chill of her secrecy, numbing him, like a poison spreading quickly through his veinsyet, at the same time, he was strangely calm-in the moment that his marriage was effectively severed he was on solid ground with her for the first time in monthsAnd for the first time in his life, another mans name upset Gogol more than his own. Her betrayal marks another turning point in his life, altering outlook and sharpening his appreciation for family connections. A year later, the shock has worn off, but a sense of failure and shame persists, deep and abiding. Experience has led to new understanding of personal values and attitudes as well as a new perception of his place in the world. In so many ways, his familys life feels like a string of accidents, unforeeseen, unintended, one incident begetting anotheryet these events have formed Gogol, shaped him, determined who he is. When he goes into his room in the closing pages of the book, he finally realizes that Gogol is his rightful name, a key part of him and of those who bestowed it. As he takes down the book given to him so many years before, he opens it a very different man from the embittered boy who had casually dismissed it as unimportant. On the title page he finds inscribed, The man who gave you his name, from the man who gave you your name..The name he had so detested, here hidden and preservedthat was the first thing his father had given him. His revelation is only noted by the reader for his mother remains unaware, as her son has been all these years, that her husband dwells discreetly, silently, patiently, within its pages. The linking of father and son is representative of cultural reconciliation and newfound pride in being Gogle. The ending remains ambiguous as the author adopts the future tense to suggest

rather than dictate what will happen, As the hours of the evening pass he will grow distracted, anxious to return to his room, to be alone, to read the book he had once forsaken, has abandoned until now.

PERSONAL RESPONSE Namesake Questions

how does Jhumpa Lahiri use food and clothing to explore cultural transitions --especially through rituals, like the annaprasan, the rice ceremony? How does Gogol try to remake his identity? In his youth, Ashoke Ganguli is saved from a massive train wreck in India. When his son, Gogol, is born, Ashoke thinks, "Being rescued from that shattered train had been the first miracle of his life. But here, now, reposing in his arms, weighing next to nothing but changing everything, is the second." Is Ashoke's love for his family more poignant because of his brush with death? Jhumpa Lahiri has said"America is a real presence in the book; the characters must struggle and come to terms with what it means to live here, to be brought up here, to belong and not belong here." How is India also a presence in the book? Lahiri explores in several ways the difficulty of reconciling cross-cultural rituals around death and dying. For instance, Ashima refuses to display the rubbings of gravestones young Gogol makes with his classmates. And when Gogol's father suddenly dies, Gogol's relationship with Maxine is strained and quickly ends. Why do you think their love affair can't survive Gogol's grief? How does the loss of Gogol's father turn him back toward his family? In the last few pages of The Namesake, Gogol begins to read "The Overcoat" for the first time --- the book his father gave him, by his "namesake." Where do you imagine Gogol will go from here? How do Gogols good public name and private pet name colour the way he views his world, how he defines himself, and how he shapes his life? Why is it important for him to accept his name? How does Gogol, over the years, try to separate himself from his parents and their heritage? How does the inscription in Gogols book from his father, The man who gave you his name from the man who gave you your name, reflect one of the books main themes? In what ways does the train wreck Ashoke Ganguli experiences in early adulthood influence his life? How does this situation work as a metaphor in the story? Think about Gogols relationships with the women in his life: Ashima, Sonia, Maxine, and Moushumi. How does each relationship reflect the changes in him as he becomes a young man? Lahiri wrote The Namesake in present tense. How does this choice shape the story and the readers relationship to it? What do you think Gogol wants most from his life? How is it different from what his family wants for him, and what they wanted when they first came to United States to start a family? The main character of The Namesake, Gogol Ganguli, makes every effort to come to terms with his name. He even changes his name when he turns 18. Why is an individuals name so important?
How can a persons name have an impact on his/her self-esteem? How important is a persons name in shaping his or her destiny?