The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri revolves around the life of Gogol Ganguli as he explores his role as an Indian American with an unfortunate namesake.
Lahiri's novel first taught me to become more honest with my writing as she explores both the beauty and richness of Bengali culture while also mentioning its downfalls, especially as it clashes with American culture. This is seen primarily through Gogol's struggle with his parents as they represent different aspects of their immigration. Ashoke and Ashima (his parents) attempt to maintain their culture while Gogol continually strays from it. Lahiri taught me that, through writing, one can explore and educate readers on the nuances of culture, immigration, and parenthood as long as its done with honesty.
Lahiri also taught me the importance of an extended metaphor. As the train metaphor stretches across the book with Ashoke's accident and Gogol discovering his wife cheating on him, readers learn the importance of having something constant to ground them as they travel a convoluted and complex timeline. Though I've attempted to use extended metaphors before, I found through The Namesake that extended metaphors require complexity in the sense that they must serve a purpose other than grounding the reader. Hopefully, over time, I will be able to master it as Lahiri has.
Lasty, The Namesake and Lahiri have taught me that although all things have significance that extends past their surface meaning, the act of storytelling is incredibly important. Despite my previous thought about the complexity of the metaphor and whatnot, I think one of the most fundamental aspects of writing a story is making sure the surface meaning is, at the very least, conveyed. Often, the figurative significance of the story is valued above the storytelling, and Lahiri has taught me that they are of equal importance.
Lahiri's novel first taught me to become more honest with my writing as she explores both the beauty and richness of Bengali culture while also mentioning its downfalls, especially as it clashes with American culture. This is seen primarily through Gogol's struggle with his parents as they represent different aspects of their immigration. Ashoke and Ashima (his parents) attempt to maintain their culture while Gogol continually strays from it. Lahiri taught me that, through writing, one can explore and educate readers on the nuances of culture, immigration, and parenthood as long as its done with honesty.
Lahiri also taught me the importance of an extended metaphor. As the train metaphor stretches across the book with Ashoke's accident and Gogol discovering his wife cheating on him, readers learn the importance of having something constant to ground them as they travel a convoluted and complex timeline. Though I've attempted to use extended metaphors before, I found through The Namesake that extended metaphors require complexity in the sense that they must serve a purpose other than grounding the reader. Hopefully, over time, I will be able to master it as Lahiri has.
Lasty, The Namesake and Lahiri have taught me that although all things have significance that extends past their surface meaning, the act of storytelling is incredibly important. Despite my previous thought about the complexity of the metaphor and whatnot, I think one of the most fundamental aspects of writing a story is making sure the surface meaning is, at the very least, conveyed. Often, the figurative significance of the story is valued above the storytelling, and Lahiri has taught me that they are of equal importance.