Cultural References In The God Of Small Things By Arundhati Roy

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy uses a lot of cultural references that not everyone might understand. Her use of stylistic devices when talking about the cultural phrases/actions to an extent help people unfamiliar with the words/actions understand them better. The use of these stylistic features really affects how these things are understood.

She refers to a few things that Indians do, that without sufficient knowledge on the Indian culture may seem very weird to an outsider. One of the first places this difference is evident is at the mention of untouchables and then more specifically Velutha and Ammu’s relationship. Our attention is first brought to this when the whole family is in the car on their way to the theatre and they
Paravans “expected to crawl backwards with a broom, sweeping away their footprints so that Brahmins or Syrian Christians would not defile themselves by accidentally stepping into a Paravan’s footprint… Paravans… were not allowed to walk on public roads, not allowed to cover their upper bodies, not allowed to carry umbrellas. They had to put up their hands over their mouths when the spoke, to divert their polluted breath away from those whom they addressed.” This, if read by a traditional Hindu practising Indian (THPI) would be considered normal and an everyday occurrence that is not at all very surprising, and that it was well done on Roy’s part for leaving the untouchables untouched (for the most part). On the other hand, an American might think that it’s a very horrible thing for people to do to others and that someone should stand up for the untouchables because they believe that everyone should be equal. A very similar thought process maybe evoked when reading about Baby kochamma’s reaction to finding out Velutha and Ammu’s relationship. “and secretly, in her heart of hearts, she exulted. She said (among other things) “How could she stand the smell? Haven’t you noticed, they have a
This is another place that differences in culture and its effect on understanding is prominent. “dances for them. He collects his fee. He gets drunk. Or smokes a joint. Good Kerala grass… That night Karna was stoned” This, when looked at by a THPI would be considered a normal thing ( in most places in India) That is done by Kathakali dancers and is something that goes hand in hand with the job. American people might thing that this was completely outrageous and unprofessional thing for an entertainer to do and that they do not take their job seriously and therefore, should not be taken seriously themselves. If he had had a fleet of make-up men waiting in the wings, an agent, a contract… what would he be? An imposter… Could he be Karna? Or would he be too safe inside his pod of wealth?” Kathakali dancers are usually very poor or have a side job and this is because unless they’re paid great amounts it’s very hard to live from kathakali dancing. Due to this dancers tend to show more raw emotion and tend not to be scared of what to show and what not to show. This from a THPI’s eyes could be both a good and a bad thing, they may see it as hard-working men keeping up old traditions and another way of storytelling so that old folktales don’t die out. However, it can also be seen a bad thing because these dances tell certain stories that had and to some extent still have content that is considered taboo. An American however could