Both Sonali and Rose are typical Sahgal women. They are independent, assertive, self-respecting, conscientious and compassionate. They come very close to Sahgal’s idea of ‘Woman’. To quote Sahgal, My women are strivers and aspirers toward freedom, toward goodness, toward a compassionate world” (5). Besides, Kishori Lal who refuse to get released from prison on the recommendation of his politically influential son – in – law, the young Marxist whose sole ambition in life is “to make revolution”, and the changed Ravi Kachru who regrets to have ever supported the idea of the Emergency are all shown to be engaged in a search for values in the doubt – ridden, directionless contemporary world and striving towards self – realization and liberation.
…show more content…
How is the writer to select a vantage point in order to present a pattern out of the apparent chaos? Nayantara Sahgal chooses a very effective narrative device for the authentic portrayal of the contemporary socio-political chaos – the double perspective. The two characters which remain at the centre of the action throughout are Sonali and Rose. The experiences of these two characters evolve alongside as the focus alternates between the two. Sonali’s experiences are narrated by Sonali herself in first person while the episodes that centre round Rose are presented by the participant – narrative viewpoint. While the omniscient author. Thus the omniscient authors, stance is alternated by the participant – narrator viewpoint. While the omin-scient author employs the tone of a being observer, objective and detached, often politely ironical and always sharply critical, the participant – narrator is like a sensitive photographic plate recording all the confusion and chaos around her. Besides, the novelist probes into the consciousness of the central characters whenever it suits the narrative purpose. As a result, the readers view the incidents from a distance and enter into the private self-awareness of the characters at the same time. This enables them to share a fairly complete picture of the experience and the work gains additional depth. The …show more content…
Hers is the English of one exposed to the English idiom and the colloquialism of the English language as a spoken force. Her language has that quality of inwardness and intimacy which very few Indo- English novelists display. Both the omniscient author and the participant – narrator show the same degree of command over language and control of tone. Both possess a keen eye for detail and a subtle sense of verbal texture. The prose in Rich Like Us is idiomatic, chatty and lucid but the deceptively casual looking sentences each define an impression, convey an idea or set a tone. The opening line of the novel is a fine instance of this. “The richer the host, the later the dinner was served”. (7) In fact the entire description of “the drink – serving pantomime” that follows typifies the plasticity of Sahgal’s linguistic medium and her intimate knowledge of the things she is describing. On a close reading of Rich Like Us one finds the tone is evoked not merely through the attitudes of the narrator but also through the deft employment of irony, subtle and somber. Sahgal’s reporting of the minister’s speech at the Happy Foundation Ceremony is an excellent illustration of her extremely agreeable
How is the writer to select a vantage point in order to present a pattern out of the apparent chaos? Nayantara Sahgal chooses a very effective narrative device for the authentic portrayal of the contemporary socio-political chaos – the double perspective. The two characters which remain at the centre of the action throughout are Sonali and Rose. The experiences of these two characters evolve alongside as the focus alternates between the two. Sonali’s experiences are narrated by Sonali herself in first person while the episodes that centre round Rose are presented by the participant – narrative viewpoint. While the omniscient author. Thus the omniscient authors, stance is alternated by the participant – narrator viewpoint. While the omin-scient author employs the tone of a being observer, objective and detached, often politely ironical and always sharply critical, the participant – narrator is like a sensitive photographic plate recording all the confusion and chaos around her. Besides, the novelist probes into the consciousness of the central characters whenever it suits the narrative purpose. As a result, the readers view the incidents from a distance and enter into the private self-awareness of the characters at the same time. This enables them to share a fairly complete picture of the experience and the work gains additional depth. The …show more content…
Hers is the English of one exposed to the English idiom and the colloquialism of the English language as a spoken force. Her language has that quality of inwardness and intimacy which very few Indo- English novelists display. Both the omniscient author and the participant – narrator show the same degree of command over language and control of tone. Both possess a keen eye for detail and a subtle sense of verbal texture. The prose in Rich Like Us is idiomatic, chatty and lucid but the deceptively casual looking sentences each define an impression, convey an idea or set a tone. The opening line of the novel is a fine instance of this. “The richer the host, the later the dinner was served”. (7) In fact the entire description of “the drink – serving pantomime” that follows typifies the plasticity of Sahgal’s linguistic medium and her intimate knowledge of the things she is describing. On a close reading of Rich Like Us one finds the tone is evoked not merely through the attitudes of the narrator but also through the deft employment of irony, subtle and somber. Sahgal’s reporting of the minister’s speech at the Happy Foundation Ceremony is an excellent illustration of her extremely agreeable