Blog title :)

Things fall apart like nectar in a sieve:
When I started reading Nectar in a Sieve, I noticed a similarity of this book to Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, which I read during first quarter. Conflicts in both books arise when Europeans settle in the villages of the main characters, Rukmani in Nectar and Okonkwo in Things. The lives of the main characters are drastically changed by the white men in their villages, and they both struggle. However, the lives of Okonkwo and Rukmani have quite different outcomes. Okonkwo, who was proud, aggressive, and stubborn, ended up taking his own life when he realized that the white men have intervened into the village life too much. Rukmani, on the other hand, remained hopeful about the future even when she lost contact with three of her sons and lost her husband and two of her sons. Even though Okonkwo was a respected man in his village, in the end, Rukmani lived a better life than Okonkwo, because Rukmani had hope.

Nathan and Rukmani’s sons:
Arjun and Thambi were my least favorite sons. They told the family that they will be working at the tannery to support the family, but I feel that they just didn’t want to take on farming and wanted to work at the tannery more than anything. They didn’t fulfill their duty as sons when they didn’t try to stay in contact with their parents when they left for the island.
Murugan confused me, because while I was reading, I could not recall the part where he left his home to work under a doctor. Although he is not present for the most of the book, his character is revealed through his wife whom he abandoned. He was into gambling and drinking, and it is possible to predict that he was most likely promiscuous. I wonder how different he would have been if he was raised under his parents until an older age.
Selvam was my favorite son of Nathan and Rukmani. He was righteous and just. He did not stand Kali talking bad about his albino nephew Sacrabani, stating that everyone is the same no matter how they look (Markandaya 118). If he wasn’t raised in a poor, destitute home, he could have had a bright future ahead of him, possibly being a lawyer or a judge.
I felt bad for Raja and Kuti, because they lost their lives way too early because of misfortunes. As Rukmani said, “There is a limit to the achievements of human courage” (Markandaya 176), and the lives of Raja and Kuti were limited by the environment they lived in.
I cannot forget about the adopted son, Puli. I understand why Nathan and Rukmani adopted him. They basically lost five of their six sons, so they probably were very lonely. Puli helped them in “Murugan’s” village and earned the love of Nathan and Rukmani. In the book, Puli acts as if he were mature and grown, but in reality, he is innocent and naïve. I wonder how the life of Puli changed after he is brought to Rukmani’s home at the end of the book.

When I was done reading Nectar, I couldn’t help but smile. Rukmani has been through everything that a person can go through in a lifetime, but she still managed to stay positive and hopeful. She made her life better by adopting Puli and bringing him back to her home. She imagined a peaceful future ahead of her, at her home with her sons, daughter, and grandson. Rukmani had such positivity that made me smile. I was devastated to see Nathan die, because not only does he have the same name as me, but also his death meant that Rukmani will have nothing. Chapter 30 changed my mind. I realized that Rukmani can still live a happy life, because she is still hopeful. This hope that Rukmani had made me smile at the end of the book.

My favorite entry was “After the play is over…,” because I analyzed the whole book after finishing it. I was able to discuss what I enjoyed about the book and what I disliked. I criticized and even compared the author to another writer. I discussed the writing style of the author and the theme, summing up the whole book. I also really like the picture of the empty theater I used for the entry.

My least favorite entry was “Blinded by faith,” because it was the first blog entry on my blog, and I didn’t really know what to do. The entry was mostly plot summary, and there was no real analysis about the play.

The blogs I thought were most effective are Kevin M.’s, Allison M.’s, and Kimberly M.’s (there must be something with last names that start with an M ). Kevin really tried to analyze the book and to find the characteristics of each characters. He shared many of his opinions on his blog, which was a great way of communication. Allison really made the book she was reading her own. She wrote many great, beautiful poems about the book, and she analyzed the book like a pro. She also incorporated quotes from the book. Kim’s blog made me want to read The Namesake. She related her personal experience to talk about the book, and her blog let me know that I can relate to the book in many ways.

By reading my blog and other people’s blogs, I was able to gain more insight to the book than what I could when I was reading by myself. I was able to communicate with others and also debate over someone’s opinion through comments, and it helped me understand the book better.

Click on the link below to view my photostory about Tartuffe.
Tartuffe Photostory

The ending of Tartuffe was pretty disappointing, I gotta say. It was too random how the Officer suddenly arrested Tartuffe instead of Orgon and didn’t make a whole lot of sense. I knew that Tartuffe will eventually be punished for his hypocrisy, because Molière wrote Tartuffe to criticize the religious hypocrites, or dévots, but how he ended the play was too predictable. It was a typical “The good wins all” story, which I was disappointed with, since I loved the play since the beginning. This was the same thing that happened with the ending for The Tempest. Everyone ended up in front of Orgon’s cell and was forgiven and happy at the end of The Tempest. All comedies have a happy ending for everyone, but it seems to me that both Molière and Shakespeare couldn’t neatly tie up their respective plays.

The overall play, however, was very enjoyable. It was easily the funniest book I have ever read for school, and it is my second favorite book that I read for school, after Things Fall Apart. Dorine and few other characters kept me laughing through the book, and I thought that the plot was great (of course, except the ending). The translation of the play by Richard Wilbur was genius. I had a chance to read Kevin’s book, which was translated by another translator, and I couldn’t understand some parts. With Wilbur’s translation, I had no problem reading the play. It was also great that the verses were rhymed to emphasize that Tartuffe is a play.

The message that the playwright was sending to the audience, or the theme, was expressed thorougly throughout the play. The play led the dévots of the 1600s to ask King Louis XIV to censor the play, so it is evident that the theme is emphasized in the play. It doesn’t really affect me, though, because I am not a hypocrite even though I am a religious person, so I guess the dévots felt to guilty to have the play uncensored.

After realizing that Tartuffe is indeed the hypocrite that his family members were telling him about, Orgon takes Damis back and regrets being tricked by Tartuffe. He even gave Tartuffe all his property, and he almost became destitute until the Prince saved his butt. Orgon put his life and his family at risk because of his foolishness and stupidity. He was so blinded that he even disinherited his own son for a man that he doesn’t really know.

Although Orgon did all these things that risked himself and his family, he didn’t apologize to his family. If I were Orgon, I would’ve been begging my family for forgiveness on my knees, but Orgon just said that he thanks the Prince. I understand that Orgon is living in a patriarchal society, but shouldn’t a human being with any sense of morality apologize to his family for what he did? Was Orgon to embarrassed to apologize to his family, as the leader of the family? Could it be because Orgon knows that nothing will change whether he apologizes or not? I really don’t think so. I just think that Orgon is still selfish and is relieved that he is safe, but isn’t really repenting.

I wish that Tartuffe was a little bit longer to tell the audience (or the readers) what happens to Orgon’s family after Tartuffe is arrested. If I were any of Orgon’s family members, especially Damis, I would not have forgiven Orgon. Orgon showed the most foolishneses out of all foolishnesses in the world and abandoned his family for someone that no one likes or trusts. This is unforgivable all on its own, and the fact that he didn’t apologize just makes it worse.

In the words of OneRepublic, “It’s too late to apologize.”

Orgon, “why can you not be rational?” (Molière 139)

Elmire and Damis are not mother and son, but stepmother and stepson. Damis calls Elmire “your [Orgon's] wife” (Molière 96), not mother, and Elmire refers to Mariane as “his [Orgon's] daughter” (89), insisting that she doesn’t consider Orgon’s children hers. It seems as if Elmire and Damis don’t have a mother-to-son relationship. However, Damis wanted to hear the conversation between Tartuffe and Elmire (80) and was furious when it was revealed that Tartuffe has been flirting with Elmire (94). Is it possible that this was because of Damis’s instinct to protect his mother? Or was it just his anger and fury toward Tartuffe’s deceitfulness, as he mentions to Dorine (79)?

Although he is the main character of the play and also the title of the play, Tartuffe does not appear in the play until Act Three Scene Two, which is already halfway through the play. It is rare for a main character to not appear in half of the play (or the book), but it is not unheard of. Catherine Earnshaw, one of the main characters of Wuthering Heights, died in the first half of the book. So, before reading Act Three Scene Two and being introduced to the real Tartuffe (haha, the irony), I wanted to sum up what other characters say about Tartuffe.

Madame Pernelle and Orgon think of Tartuffe as sort of a divine being. They think that Tartuffe is the closest person to God. Madame Pernelle calls Tartuffe “a fine man” (Molière 10) and thinks that he “should be listened to” (10). Dorine says that Madame Pernelle “see[s] him [Tartuffe] as a saint” (11). Orgon thinks of Tartuffe more highly than Madame Pernelle does. Orgon claims that “there’s been no loftier soul since time began” (25) and that Tartuffe is “an excellent man” (25). Orgon goes as far as saying that Tartuffe is “the very worthiest of men” (39).

The rest of the house doesn’t quite agree with Madame Pernelle and Orgon. Damis calls Tartuffe a “hypocrite” (10) who “is full of holy speeches” (10), and Dorine says that Tartuffe “rails at everything” (10). Dorine also reveals that Tartuffe was a beggar before he came into the house (11), and Cléante thinks that Orgon is “dazed by this man’s [Tartuffe's] hocus-pocus” (24).

For right now, I agree more with “the rest of the house” about Tartuffe, but I’ll have to make my own judgments as I am reading the play. It will be interesting to see how the character of Tartuffe develops with his appearance.

Orgon is so tricked by Tartuffe at this point (Act 2) that he suggests that his daughter, Mariane, should marry Tartuffe, even when Mariane is in love with Valère. By the way of how Orgon “suggested” this marriage, it almost sounds like Orgon is forcing his daughter to marry Tartuffe. He makes Mariane say thank you to him, and then tells her that “[she'll] cheerfully obey [him]” (Molière 38). After the insurance of obedience from Mariane comes the “suggestion.” Mariane has no choice other than to say yes, but she is devastated and heartbroken, because she is already in love with another man, and she hates Tartuffe.

Now, is it possible to have happiness in forced marriage? The Chinese poem “The River-Merchant’s Wife: A Letter”, written by Li Po, shows a wife, who married her husband through arranged marriage, missing her husband who has been gone for a few months. In order to miss someone, you have to love someone, and love brings happiness. So, is it possible to find happiness in a forced marriage? Forced marriages have been a common practice in some regions, and still are even to this day, and it would be impossible to say that every single couple who married through forced marriage has been unhappy. However, many say that forced marriage violates human rights.

This leaves me with one question in my mind: If Mariane married Tartuffe, could she find happiness with him?

In Act One, Scene Four, Orgon finally comes home. He asks how the family is doing, but he is actually asking how Tartuffe is doing. Dorine tells Orgon that his wife Elmire has been extremely sick, but Orgon pretends that he doesn’t hear what Dorine is saying about Elmire and continues to ask about Tartuffe. Even though Dorine tells Orgon that Tartuffe has been doing great, Orgon keeps calling Tartuffe a “poor fellow” (Molière 21). Even in Scene Five, when Cléante tells Orgon that he shouldn’t be feeding and giving shelter to Tartuffe, Orgon tells Cléante that he “[does] not know the man of whom [he] speak[s]” (Molière 24).

What could Tartuffe possibly have done to Orgon to “brainwash” him to this extent? Orgon abandons his family and even his wife for Tartuffe. How is it possible for one to not care for his sick wife because of his “faith” in God and in another person? What is going through Orgon’s head when he hears about his wife’s sickness? Orgon is showing Tartuffe truly unconditional positive regard and total acceptance, even though he doesn’t gain anything. He doesn’t even listen to his family members who tell him the truth about Tartuffe. What kind of thoughts is going through Orgon’s head when he thinks about Tartuffe?