Sherry's Writing Portfolio

Essay Draft Three

5 Comments 24.5.07 03:16, comment

Essay Draft One

Sherry Yan
May 1, 2007
Draft One

Title

The Grass-Eaters by Krishnan Varma, an Indian writer, is a short story written in 1985. Varma tended to focus on the life of the poorest in India of the contemporary time. In The Grass-Eaters, Varma narrated an amusing and absurd experience of a poor couple in the lowest social caste who shifted from place to place in order to look for somewhere inhabitable. When telling the story, Varma adopted a genre of black humor in depicting the dire life of the poorest. His accomplished mastering of black humor as well as words and phrases maximizes the artistic effect of black humor, arousing great amounts of laughter, which then leaves so deep an impression on the readers.

However, despite the fact that I really enjoy the intense amusement brought by the well-elaborated absurd descriptions, I hold such a view that the reason why The Grass-Eaters is so profound and impressive is that the black humor in the story evokes much reflection between the lines besides mere laughter. Having burst out laughing at the humorous parts of the story, oftentimes I came up with many questions after the laughter involuntarily, accompanied by much contemplation concerned. Laughter aroused by the black humor does bring much amusement, but it is rather the reflection it evokes that guides readers deep into the real desperate life of the poorest in India and to the social issues veiled by the letter of the story, which renders the whole article more profound and impressive.

Actually such invitation to spontaneous reflection by humorous description has been elaborately arranged from the very beginning of the story. In the first several paragraphs, the hero recalls a tutoring experience several years ago. The hero's student is "a spherical boy" (56) with his father portrayed as an "ovoid father" and his mother modified as a "cuboid" (56) woman. Laconic as the humorous description is, it not only successfully creates an amusing atmosphere, but also vividly embodies the characters of the family members, imposing a deep impression on the readers. However something more impressive looms in my mind after I continue reading. In the following paragraphs, the hero introduces the first abode of he and his wife, which is a footpath crammed with residents, refugees and locals. On a cold evening, the hero wakes up only to find that the one lies beside him is not his wife Swapna but an elderly lady, which is expressed by Varma as "a bag of bones" (56). Associating "a bag of bones" with the above mentioned "spherical", "ovoid" and "cuboid" quite naturally, readers are inclined to feel strongly amused at the sharp and humorous contrast. Much laughter is invited when the readers imagine the profiles of these characters according to the geometrical shapes and "a bag of bones". What's more, readers may come up with some reflection at the meanwhile of laughing.

When I look at the imaginary figures of the family members and the old lady, I wondered involuntarily why the figures of the former seem so convex, plump and huge, while that of the latter appears so concave, skeletony and diminutive? Then I just loose the reins of my imagination and try to get the answers. As is explained in the story, the family is able to afford employing a tutor, representing the bourgeoisie, while the old lady is an inhabitant of the crowded footpath, which is typical of the poorest in India. Abruptly a flash strikes me, aren't their figures characteristic of their classes and apparently embody their living status? Middle class live a well-off life, enjoying abundant food and spacious housing, which may be the primary reason why they appear in plump figure. The poorest assuming such a haggard appearance, I can't help imagining what a horrible life they have to live. Maybe in their lives, not only is food and living space so miserably meagre, so it is with every resource, including water, clothing and anything basically necessary, not to mention education or something alike. Familiar feeling emerges when I read through the description of the hero's wife when she finds the hero lies beside an all-boned elderly lady. "Then came Swapna, fangs bared, claws out..."(56) Similar skeletony figure forms in my brain and I naturally doubted that Varma may wants to imply something despite the exaggeration in this description. Is it because the couple is too poor to have any nail clippers that Swapna can't trim her fingernails, which results in her "claws"? Intense twinges striking me, suddenly I feel what I originally found amusing so woeful now. The former amusement really impressed me a lot. Nevertheless, for the time being I am overwhelmed by a much more imposing impression on me through such stabs incurred by pondering over the whole absurdity.

The following story tells about what the couple experiences in their new lodge subsequent to the footpath, which refers to an abandoned-looking freight wagon at the railway terminus. This experience is so amusing that I almost laugh off my head every time I come to this part. Varma describes it in such humor:

"A whole wagon to ourselves—a place with doors which could be opened and shut—we did nothing but open and shut them for a full hour—all the privacy a man and wife could want—no fear of waking up with a complete stranger in your arms… it was heaven. I felt I was god." (57)

As soon as I imagine that a pair of a man and a woman keep opening and shutting the gate of a wagon for a whole day with brilliant grin from ear to ear, I feel the scene so funny that I can't help laughing out loud for quite a while, rating it as the world's most absurd scene. However, after calming down, some questions naturally arise and they become intensified in the following paragraph. Having moved out of the seemingly deserted wagon, the couple keep look for somewhere new to live. However, Swapna suddenly sturdily insists on a stationary home rather than a mobile one. Under such circumstance, the hero tries to persuade Swapna to accept a mobile home.

"If I tried to persuade her to change her mind, pointing out all the advantages of living in a wagon—four walls, a roof and door absolutely free of charge, and complete freedom to make love day or night—she still sniveled." (57)

There obviously exist some contradictions between what the couple deems and the conventional notions, which lead to the absurdity and thus arouse laughter. Apart from amusement, they evoke reflection. Most often, readers find such description extremely funny out of the following reason that an abandoned-looking freight is so strange and uninhabitable an abode, however, the couple seems to have a crush on it at the very first sight and regard it as the most invaluable treasure. When they find it unoccupied, they are so raptured that they keep opening and shutting the gate for a whole day. It's indeed noticeable that they favor the gate extremely, while it cannot be commoner for a house to have a door, or in most cases several doors. When persuading Swapna, the hero even cites "four walls, a roof and door" as the advantages of a wagon, while nowadays most people consider these components most basic and integral parts of an abode. And the most impressive point is that the hero feels himself as god in the wagon. In this part of the story, it is apparent that what ordinary people consider most common are deemed as most precious by the couple. Such strong contradiction and sharp contrast are surely more than mere laughing stock that they render readers inclined to reflect on the contradiction between literal amusements. Why does the couple swoon for joy when they find such a wagon? Why do they have special partiality for four walls, a roof and most vitally, a door? What results in the hero's feeling of acting god in the freight? One of the most reasonable answers is that: perhaps this is because the couple has never inhabited somewhere with a real door and rarely has the chance to live in an abode with four walls and a roof, which indicates an unbelievably dire living state of the couple.

Besides, it is highly worth noticing that the hero specially stresses that all these walls and roof and gate are free of charge, which naturally arouses such a presumption in readers that the couple may be so poor that they even cannot afford the cheapest rent of a simple and crude hut. Furthermore, it's highly likely that since the hero has never truly possessed a whole space to himself, he finds it extremely exhilarating at the possession of the space inside the wagon, the strong feeling of which hoists him to the heavens, endowing him with the feeling of "god". All above are just conjectures, but they really appear so close to the fact, which evoke more intense emotions in readers than laughter. Perhaps Varma did't directly narrate the awful living status of the poorest, but the conjectures ensuing the laughter attains the same effect of straight narration, and more probably, such conjectures effect more intensely. Interlaced amusement and conjecture gradually guide readers down the stairs flight by flight and finally deep into the innermost feeling of the poorest of that time.

The reason why Swapna firmly insists on a stationary home turns out to be the surprise that she has been pregnant. Knowing the fact, the hero immerses himself in imagining about their fourth child. There is also some interesting description on his imagination. "Would the baby be a boy? I felt no doubt about it; it would be. Someone to look after us in our old age, to do our funeral rites when we died." (57) Every time I read through this contemplation, I feel quite amused. It seems queer and absurd to connect an immature baby with some adult to look after the parents when they are old, and it is especially weird to associate a baby with someone to do the funeral rites when the parents die. Do parents bear child specially for the purpose of arranging their funeral rites in the future? I can't help chuckling at the whimsy. When a couple has a child, the most normal idea that emerges in their mind may be the brilliant blueprint of the child's future, probably interwoven with a necessary education, a lucrative profession, a virtuous spouse and a wholesome living condition. Apparently, the hero never thinks of anything like these. Is he desperate about the future of the child? Does he stubbornly harbor as somber an expectation on the life of the baby as that of himself? These involuntary associations keep hovering over me, casting a gloomy shadow. It's especially absurd that the hero regard the next child as someone to hold the funeral rites of him and Swapna. Seemingly that death is the only thing matters in his life. In fact as is narrated in the story, the couple has already lost the first three of their child attributed to poverty. Thus it seems dismally reasonable that death is something the couple witness everyday everywhere and they have to face it anytime by the by. Actually the life of the poorest in India of that time is just like what is pondered above. Their lives consist of nothing but those related to deaths. Their lives are so horrible that today people may take it for granted that such living standard cannot be better described other than "absurd". Tactfully Varma wove the true life of the poorest in the black humor, embroidering a monogram of "Absurdity" and "Desolation" on readers' minds, evoking much contemplation.

In the following plot comes one of the amusing descriptions that evoke most reflection, which is included in the hero's several suggestions of somewhere to live for Swapna:

"She firmly rejected all my suggestions: the railway station platform (too many residents); a little-used overbridge (she was not a kite to live so high above the ground); a water tank that had fallen down and was empty (Did I think that she was a frog?)." (57)

Laughter is easily aroused by these amusing suggestions and further invited by the explanations in parentheses. All these places might seem incredible as abodes for most common readers nowadays, however, besides laughter, readers can easily get the implication that these seemingly incredible abodes might be some kind of quite nice lodges for the couple; otherwise the hero would not list them as some suggestions for Swapna. If there really exists some advantage in the absurd living places, then what can be easily concluded by the readers is likely to fall on the common ground of these almost uninhabitable places—"free of charge". Black humor evokes laughter, which then calls up much reflection, and then leads the readers deep into the miserable life of the poorest. Since the poorest Indians are so penniless that they cannot afford the rent of anywhere inhabitable according to common knowledge, they have to find some place comparatively suitable for human residence based on the imperative foundation of complete free of charge. The couple in the story perfectly typifies those poorest in the most severe predicament. In their search for a lodge, Swapna insists on somewhere relatively spacious and close, which induces the hero's suggestion of an overbridge and a tank. On seeing these seemingly inconceivably absurd suggestions, readers are apt to feel it complicated at the imagination aroused by them. However, it is due to the contradiction between the impulse to laugh and to woe that they walk step by step closer to the real life of the poorest.

What induces most laughter in this part is the hero's whimsy: "Did I think that she was a frog?" Being weak with laughter, I feel Swapna and frog especially incomparable except for the similar habitat—"a water tank that had fallen down and was empty". It seems that besides Swapna's urgent need for a place to live, nothing else in her can leave a impression on the hero and her strong desire for a stationary home is the only characteristic in the hero's mind. Actually, in some sense, this speculation conforms to the real status of the poorest of the contemporary time. People of the lowest hierarchy in India in the middle of the 20th century owns nothing expect for their own life, thus the only target of them is to maintain their lives with all their effort, by looking for food and water, for some place to live and something to cover their naked body in chilly days, which occupy all their attention that anything else just represents nothing to them. Maybe in the hero's mind, everything else in Swapna turns out to be insignificant, while only her request for a stationary home makes sense, since it matters in their living on. If all the other characteristics of Swapna can be neglected, she can really be compared to a frog in terms of living in a water tank, thus it's possible that Swapna does equal a frog in the hero's mind. All the thoughts above fill me with lamentation that the poorest can be reduced to such a stranded occasion that they care nothing but basic living necessities.

Such feeling is stressed by the following paragraphs. Occasionally, the couple comes upon a cement concrete pipe left over from long-age repairs to underground mains. "Unbelievably, it was not occupied and, with no prompting from me, she crept into it." (58) The spontaneous reaction of Swapna to some degree proves that in her mind, the only thing matters is also a stationary home, except which she has no more energy in considering anything else. Besides, the description that "Unbelievably, it was not occupied" also tickles the readers, arousing contemplation subsequently. The word "unbelievably" clearly indicates that such a pipe should have been occupied by someone else, implying that the deserted pipe is quite an appealing residence for many poor. Readers often find such idea interesting, but after laughter, they tend to sink themselves in deeper thoughts. Isn't it a horrible society if people live so miserable a life that they can't favor a pipe more as an ideal home? Varma never shouts these exclamations out directly in his writing, but he successfully evokes them by his exaggerative descriptions spiced by black humor.

The misery of exhilarating at a new living place repeats several times in the whole story. When finally the hero decides to live on a roof, he accomplishes the new lodge in the following way:

"It's not bad as it sounds. The roof is flat, not gabled, and it is made of cement concrete, not corrugated iron sheets. The rent is far less than that of other tenants below us…" (58)

"We have far more light and ventilation than they. We don't get nibbled by rats and mice and rodents as often as they do. And our son, Prodeep, has far more room to play than the children below." (58)

Reading through all these humorous mental descriptions, almost everyone experiences a mixed feeling of amusement first and lamentation ensuing. The miserable life of the poor couple is thus rendered extremely potent and impressive since the readers don't get it through reading the descriptions of misery, but through self-reflection and conjuring them up from the superficial absurdity. This process of contemplation is just like working on a problem. It's undoubtedly more impressive if you work the answer out than merely read through the key provided. Besides, the great amusement brought by the well-elaborated black humor subtly form a sharp contrast with the misfortunes, imposing a much stronger impact on the mind of readers. Thus we have every reason to induce that without the thoughts evoked by the skillful arrangement of humor, mere laughter is far from enough to make the whole article so profound and impressive a work.

Approximate to the end of the story come up some most amusing and thought-provoking descriptions of the story. On the issue of clothing of the couple, the hero narrates that there really exists an advantage of the absence of their son, Prodeep, that he and Swapna therefore do not have to wear much clothing: "I make do with a loin cloth and Swapna with a piece slightly wider to save our few threadbare clothes from further wear and tear. I can spare little from my pension for new clothes." (58) Amusing words sketch an absurd scene in the reader's brain, evoking much laughter which is followed by lamentation of the same amount on their impoverished living status. What’s more worth pondering is the description after this narration that trickles much association:

"Swapna finds it very embarrassing to be in my presence in broad daylight so meagerly clad and so contrives to keep her back turned to me. Like a chimp in the sulks, I am fed up with seeing her backside and tell her that she has nothing that I have not seen. But she is adamant; she will not turn around. After nightfall, however, she relents: we are both nightblind." (58)

Almost everyone burst into laughter when coming across this part of description, which paints as absurd a scene as the above mentioned one in which the couple keeps opening and shutting the gate of the freight for a whole day. But what's more touching in this absurd scene is not the amusement but the sorrow. It's undoubted that the couple not only fails in affording renting a lodge with four walls, a roof and door, but also feels it too tough to keep adequate clothing on them, which finally results in this woeful farce. What if I were the hero and had to face wife's back everyday in the daytime merely because we were too poor to buy some clothes? I feel contradicted between laughter and lament on this imagination. However, except boredom, the hero might be too dumb to feel anything else—he might have no more energy to spare on such things apart from on striving to live on. Such speculation really tinges me and awakes sincere sympathy.

What's especially striking is the last sentence of this paragraph: "After nightfall, however, she relents: we are both nightblind." Readers are easily amused at such a turning point after so intense a stalemate, since they may have never thought of such a solution as "being nightblind". But after the laughter, curiosity naturally grasps the readers. I instinctively ponder over such a question: is "nightblind" merely an exaggerative expression of Varma, or is it indeed the fact? After further reflection, I prefer the latter. It's highly likely to be true that the couple are nightblind, and the reason must be the malnutrition caused by too less food, which then results in the lack of vitamin A, the pathological cause of nightblind. This idea strongly shakes me, revealing such a fact that despite the superficial optimism of the hero, the health of him and Swapna has already declined, causing much inconvenience in their daily life. However, they have to struggle to live on regardless of all these handicaps. Contemplation over these issues impresses me much more than the laughter the absurdity evokes, especially when I find out that the handicap resulted from poverty has already induced many disadvantages that can never be compensated for by mere optimism.

Similar thought-provoking absurd turning point also exists in the following part of the story, which explains the title of the article—"The Grass-Eaters". "Grass is our staple food now: a mound of green grass boiled with green peppers and salt, and a few ladles of very thin rice gruel." (58) Laughing through this narration, some complicated feeling takes grasp of me. The truth is that, the couple lives where is generally deemed uninhabitable, dresses themselves in strips of cloth generally regarded as unwearable and feeds on a bits of grass that common people consider inedible. Readers laugh at them for their absurd behavior. Moreover, people lament for them when reading through their freakish lives. We feel amused at their absurdity, but it's the deep contemplation that impresses on us the dire life and the monstrous social environment. Undoubtedly the society must be as freakish as the life of the couple, or more probably, it is far more disfigured than their life. Strong indignation and deep compassion emerge from the brain of the readers, rendering the whole story more profound and moving.

The tenant below the hero comes out with a theory that if one reduces one's food by five grams everyday, one will not sense the diminution and some day later, one can live without consuming any food at all. The tenant practiced the theory and the result is described in the following way. "He can get around, however badly he totters, because he has two legs; but I have only one. I lost the other after a fall from the roof of a tram." (58) After nightblindness, another handicap, mutilation, is revealed in this paragraph, serving the same function as an absurd and dramatic turning point as that of "nightblindness", which meanwhile largely enhances the readers' lamentation and the compassion for the couple. Readers are inclined to be besieged by deep sorrow for them, while such sorrow is further imprinted after the former laughter that sharply contrasts the misery of the poorest. The lamentation reaches the climax in the posture that the hero takes upon being disabled: "I don’t mind my handicap at all; I need wear only one sandal and thereby save on footwear." In this claim, the sorrow is easily transformed into despair by the desperately optimism of the hero. This despair can never be experienced by laughing at the absurd scenes, but can only be understood by reflecting on all the desperate absurdity.

The end of the story elevates the reflection to the highest level as well as the absurdity. The life of the grass-eaters is summarized as the following:

"And now, we have no fears or anxieties. We have a home made of coal tar drums. We eat two square meals of grass every day. We don't need to wear clothes. We have a son to do our funeral rites when we die. We live very quietly, content to look at the passing scene: a tram burning, a man stabbing another man, a woman dropping her baby in a garbage bin." (59)

Readers may laugh at the conclusion, but laughter cannot help them memorize the story. It is the reflection, the realization of the despair of the poorest that records the story of the grass-eaters on their mind. Such reflections come from the many questions that naturally arise around this conclusion: Do the couple really have no fears or anxieties? Do they really live very quietly? And do they really fill content when they witness the miserable passing scenes? Most importantly, what on earth results in the dire and absurd life of the poorest? Boundary between truth and exaggeration becomes especially blurred here and maybe it is Varma's very intention to induce such bewilderment. What the answers turn out to be do not matter much, what matters is process of reflection and trying to stand in the shoes of the grass-eaters. At least in contemplation, readers can gradually understand what on earth this kind of quietude and content is in a desperate mood and what the dumbness to life caused by despair is after all. No matter what is the real cause of the horrible life of the poorest, at least we can assert one point: something has been seriously wrong with this society and it urges remedy. Up till now, the readers have already stepped into the world of the poorest under the guide of Varma through their own inquiring, pondering and association. All of these can never be attained by mere amusement or laughter. Or maybe we can understand the attraction of The Grass-Eaters in a better way: the black humor brings much amusement and laughter to the reader, which appeals to them at first; while it is the reflection it evokes that elucidates the real despair of the poorest besides the direness of their lives, finally fully revealing the profound content of the humorous story, leaving an indelible impression on everyone who reads through the work.

Actually when I firstly started reading the story, I felt thoroughly amused at Varma's black humor, however, the further I proceeded in reading, the further I felt sunk in contemplation and shocked. When I finished the whole article, what impressed me most were those words that struck me most through my patient pondering rather than those that amused me most. Thus I firmly deem that the reason the reflection evoked by black humor between the lines plays a more significant role in displaying the live of the poorest than the laughter. Apart from this sturdy view, I also believe that besides revealing the true miserable life of the poorest, Varma also attempted to arouse some conscience in the multitudes in caring for the lowest class and in exploring the sticking point of the dire social environment and in rectifying the abnormal social status. All these evocations are veiled by the amusement the revelation of which requires much pondering and feedbacks more profound and deeper understanding not only in the dire life of the poorest and the horrible society of that time, but also in that of the current time.

Work cited

Varma, Krishnan. "The Grass-Eaters" 1985. in The International Story: An Anthology with Guidelines for Reading and Writing about Fiction. Ruth Spack. New York: St. Martin's, 1994. 6-8.

1 Comment 24.5.07 03:14, comment

Reading Log