Midnight's Children Novel & Movie Adaptation

Hello friends, today I'm going to discuss the novel "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie and the movie adaptation "Midnight's Children" directed by Deepa Mehta and narrated by Salman Rushdie. This task is assigned by our professor Dr. Dilip Barad sir. This blog describes the comparison between the novel and movie adaptation. Let's have a look at some of the topics which are similar and different in both forms. 



πŸ‘‰ First point to ponder upon is narrative technique. How was the narrative technique of the movie adaptation and in the novel ? So let's see how the technique was. 


It is remarkable that what many consider as Salman Rushdie’s landmark work in fiction, Midnight’s Children, was first adapted to film only in 2012, 31 years after its publication. It was also the first of his works to be filmed. This is noteworthy given the novel’s cinematic self-awareness and the writer’s overt interest in acting and cinema, which he has reiterated over the years.2 Besides publishing, Rushdie has had a long career in the creative economy  in the 1960s as a television script writer in Karachi after acting in the Cambridge Footlights Revue; in the 1970s as a freelance copywriter in advertising agencies and as an actor on the London fringe; and in later years as a script writer and performer of cameo roles in films.


Cinema, as a subject matter and a distinctive artistic language, resurfaces time and again in the pages of Rushdie’s essays, short stories, novels, and other writings. As many critics have pointed out, the writer’s emotional connection to cinema has translated into cinema itself being put to work as a mediating device in his oeuvre, with his characters often making sense of themselves and the world and coming to terms with their own place in it through cinema.


∆Here is the trailer of the movie :-




Midnight's Children is the story of Saleem Sinai, and how by virtue of being born at the very same moment of his country's independence at the midnight of August 15th, 1947 he is "handcuffed to history." Saleem and 420 other children are bound by magical powers which bind them to each other, but ultimately to their country. Rushdie explores the emergence of not only modern day India, but also of Pakistan and Bangladesh. 


When Midnight’s Children was published it brought Rushdie extensive literary approval, and has later come to be understood as an example of the


“theoretical preoccupations of 

postcolonial studies - not only manifesting high postmodernism’s aesthetic difficulty, 

experimentation, and play but also verifying the poststructuralist emphasis on writing and 

textuality.” 


In his work on Midnight’s Children Neil Ten Kortenaar claims that national history writing is a 


“well-defined narrative form: established origins, turning points 

and climaxes, and an agreed chronology of significant events.” 


Rushdie’s novel is in Kortenaar’s work discussed from different angles, subjects such as hybridity and magic realism are treated. However, through Kortenaar’s chapter, The Allegory of History, national allegory in the novel is a fundamental topic. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms allegory is a story with a second distinct meaning, the principal technique of allegory is personification whereby abstract qualities are given a human shape. It involves a continuous parallel between different levels of meaning in a text. 


However, in the novel the preceding chapters to Tick Tock are told in retrospect and Saleem’s abundance of stories make it difficult, not only for the reader, but also for the naΓ―ve narratee Padma, to follow his jumps in time and space, as well as his many other digressions. After journeys that have brought Saleem to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Delhi, he retires when he has rediscovered his ayah Mary Pereira in his childhood city, Bombay. She now owns a pickle factory and is able to provide him with whatever he needs, and he has the time and opportunity to pickle his memory and write down the story of his life. The setting in the pickle factory where Saleem recounts his stories are said to be a parallel to the frame story of Arabian Nights. This isevidently an intertextual element used to make suspense both in Arabian Nights, also famous as One Thousand and One Nights, and in Midnight’s Children. But in the film the character of Padma is missing, so the responsibility to understand the situation comes over the watchers.  So we can see some threats in the film. 


πŸ‘‰ The second point is about characters. There are some characters which are left out in  the film adaptation. It is hard to describe every Characters in the film. So the narrator used the major and important Characters in the adaptation. 


These are the main characters.


  • Satya Bhabha as Saleem Sinai, 
  • Shriya Saran as Parvati, 
  • Siddharth Narayan as Shiva, 
  • Darsheel Safary as Saleem Sinai (as a child), 
  • Anupam Kher as Ghani, 
  • Shabana Azmi as Naseem, 
  • Neha Mahajan as Young Naseem, 
  • Seema Biswas as Mary, 
  • Charles Dance as William Methwold, 
  • Samrat Chakrabarti as Wee Willie Winkie, 
  • Rajat Kapoor as Aadam Aziz, 
  • Soha Ali Khan as Jamila, 
  • Rahul Bose as Zulfikar, 
  • Anita Majumdar as Emerald, 
  • Shahana Goswami as Amina, 
  • Chandan Roy Sanyal as Joseph D'Costa, 
  • Ronit Roy as Ahmed Sinai, 
  • Kulbhushan Kharbanda as Picture Singh, 
  • Shikha Talsania as Alia, 
  • Zaib Shaikh as Nadir Khan, 
  • Sarita Choudhury as Indira Gandhi, 
  • Vinay Pathak as Hardy, 
  • Kapila Jayawardena as Governor, 
  • Ranvir Shorey as Laurel, 
  • Suresh Menon as Field Marshal, 
  • G.R Perera as Astrologer. 


In the opening scenes we can observe differences in the way the versions address the audience: the novel’s narrator uses the first person to provide, in a deferred and roundabout way, his story; in the film, there is also direct speech, but the narrative proceeds much more unswervingly. The other two versions do not construct a rapport with the audience in such a straightforward way by direct address. In movie, the audience is shown both the historical background on screen and the event of the twin births on stage. Only after these opening scenes does the narrator step in, either as a voiceover or as a character onstage.


The novel and the film thus seem to initially create a more personal rapport with their constructed audiences. It is significant in this respect that the character of Padma, the novel’s original immediate addressee and audience  the person who listens to and comments on Saleem’s narrative, and the second main character in the novel, after the protagonist is included in the first two adaptations, but in the film she is supplanted by Rushdie’s voiceover.


Padma’s role in the film was originally offered to the actor Nandita Das, who had worked with Mehta in Fire and Earth, but Das abandoned the project for personal reasons. Rather than looking for a substitute for the role of Padma, this setback was compensated by introducing the voiceover. The choice has been regarded variously as a success and a failure by critics, for example, from the gender perspective. There are indeed grounds for interpreting the substitution of a female voice with a male as problematic; this change may even be attributed to the authorial ego. However that may be, it creates a fundamental difference between the versions. 


πŸ‘‰ No Padma: The author–audience bond :-

What happens, then, when there is no Padma, as in the film? How does the narrative proceed when she is not there to probe Saleem to get on with the story  


“You better get a move on or you’ll die before you get yourself born”  

or to question the validity of his claims 


“All the time […] you tricked me ?” 


To begin with, Padma’s questioning (and doubting) voice disappears. In the 39 instances wherein the film’s narrator appears, only four present questions, while the remaining are declarative statements. In three of these, the questions are immediately answered by the narrator: 


“Why did she marry him so quickly? For solace? For the children they both wanted so much? My mother, Ameena Sinai, in her new incarnation resolved to forget the poet Nadir and fall in love with my father, Ahmed Sinai” ; “Only exile? In exile, I learned about power”; “Who were we? We were the promises of Independence” 


The single question that is not answered comes towards the end: 


“And what of Shiva, Shiva who was now a wanted man?”


This is also one of the two main differences (including the absence of Padma) between thth film and the novel: in the novel, what happened to Shiva is left uncertain  


“To tell the truth, I lied about Shiva’s death. My first out-and-out lie […] I’m still terrified of him”


but in the film he rides into a truck and dies, which is implicit only inasmuch as his body is not shown. One may speculate that the significance of this change resides in the fact that the film is less open to interpretation and, together with the slightly more optimistic ending discussed earlier, turns the gaze from oppressive past to future.


With respect to the impact on reception of having the author in Padma’s role, the use of Rushdie’s voice for the narration has received mixed reviews. One reviewer notes how the voiceover technique makes it feel like Rushdie is sitting next to you in the audience, nudging you in the ribs, over-explaining the story and still expecting you to laugh and cry at the right moments. Another one finds the choice more pleasing: It’s a masterstroke having Rushdie provide the film’s narration. His instantly-recognisable tone reciting his self-penned words render him a comforting guide on this tumultuous journey.


The fact that the voiceover conflates the moment Saleem came from his mother’s womb and the actual historical event of India’s independence takes the audience to a metafictional level if they realize (or know in advance) that the actual person narrating the story was also born around the time of India’s independence, on 19 June 1947, only two months before the cataclysmic subcontinental events of August 1947. In this sense, the film can be interpreted as a semi-autobiographical narrative, one which is adapted by Rushdie himself from his own novel and roughly based on his childhood  facts that are emphasized in the movie’s trailers. 


πŸ‘‰ The third point is the themes and symbols. The film adapted it very well. Rushdie steered the project of adapting Midnight’s Children into film from the outset, exercising an even tighter creative control than in the earlier adaptations, co-authoring the script and acting as executive producer. Another instance of this greater creative control is the use of his own voice to narrate the film, although the choice itself is attributed to Mehta’s insistence. If we talk about the various themes of the novel we can see this major themes :


  • Truth and Storytelling

  • British Colonialism and Postcolonialism

  • Sex and Gender

  • Identity and Nationality

  • Fragments and Partitioning

  • Religion


And if we talk about the symbols which are used in the novel we can see,


  • The Silver Spittoon


The silver spittoon is an important symbol used in both art, novel and film. It is given to Amina as part of her dowry by the Rani of Cooch Naheen who is responsible for Saleem’s loss of memory. Even when he has amnesia, however, Saleem continues to cherish the spittoon as if he still understands its historical value. Following the destruction of his family, the silver spittoon is the only tangible remnant of Saleem’s former life, and yet it too is eventually destroyed when Saleem’s house in the ghetto is torn down. Spittoons, once used as part of a cherished game for both old and young, gradually fell out of use: the old men no longer spit their beetlejuice into the street as they tell stories, nor do the children dart in between the streams as they listen. So it can be considered as an important symbol.


  • The perforated sheet 


In the movie we have seen two times The perforated sheet through which Aadam Aziz falls in love with his future wife performs several different symbolic functions throughout the novel. Unable to see his future wife as a whole, Aadam falls in love with her in pieces. As a result, their love never has a cohesive unit that holds them together.




The second use we see while the performance of singing by Jamila.

  • Knees and nose 

The other pivotal symbol is the nose of Saleem. Saleem inherits his rather large, and perpetually congested, nose from his grandfather, Aadam Aziz, who also uses his nose to sniff out trouble. Saleem’s nasal powers begin after an accident in his mother’s washing-chest, in which he sniffs a rogue pajama string up his nose, resulting in a deafening sneeze and the instant arrival of the voices in his head. Saleem’s power of telepathy remains until a sinus surgery clears out his nose “goo.” After his surgery, Saleem is unable to further commune with the other children. Ironically, after Saleem’s nasal congestion is gone, he gains the ability to smell emotions, and he spends much time categorizing all the smells he frequently encounters. In short his all power goes after the operation, but one other ability he gets after operation also.

The themes and symbols are well presented in the film adaptation. We find that the director tried to portray all the things in the film, which Rushdie describes in the novel. Salim's nose created a big issue in the movie, and it had special power that Salim can call his friends through his nose. It seems magical element. 


Well some symbols are used very closely in some movies, like Taj Mahal. But Salman Rushdie and Deepa Mehta haven't took very close up scene of Taj Mahal. That we can see in the movie,




The integrity of the film is assured by Rushdie's own close involvement. The acting in the film, is understated and superb. Satya Bhabha exhibits a tenderness and toughness which is a jarring contrast to Matthew Patel in the peerless Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Shriya Saran and Shahana Goswami are impossibly elegant, and makes one wonder why every wedding isn't Indian. The breakout role may be the one of Darsheel Safary in his precocious portrayal of a 10 year old Saleem. 


The film itself is a wondrous palette of colours - with Sri Lanka being the setting for over 64 locations as diverse as Kashmir and Bengal spanning several decades.




Mehta stated that her focus on particular colours and slowly intensifying them were thematic choices. For instance, in the part signifying The Emergency of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, blue particularly resonates over the grim darkness, caressing the viewer's eyes with a sense of calm. And the settlement of India and Pakistan is also the talk of the novel. It is portrayed well in the film adaptation also.




Rushdie himself narrates, his voice exhibiting the calm energy of a man thrilled to bring a work which is almost 30 years old to a new generation. So we can say that it was great combination of various scenes. I recommend you to read the novel. If it isn't possible watch the movie. You will surely enjoy and learn many things.


πŸ‘‰ And the fourth point is the texture of the novel. Well, it is the interconnectedness of narrative technique with the theme. And yes it is well captured. Because there are lots of things in the novel, but we can't capture everything in two or three hours. But the movie tried it's best. We see the good attempt by Salman Rushdie and Deepa Mehta. The film is not told in chronological order, but it is told in flashback. When Salim remembered something he told the audience and listener. And then come back to real life from that flashback. Whole story is told by Salim. And he described the things that he felt. This is my interpretation of the novel and film adaptation. 



πŸ‘‰ We had a screening of the movie in online mode. The initial impression is impressive. Salam Rushdie as the narrator and writer tried to capture it very well in the film. To cover everything in one movie is hard to maintain. When we read a novel it takes a lot of time, but we can watch a movie in 2 or 3 hours. But when we read the whole novel it describes the deep ideas, but the movie can not present everything in comparison to the novel. And Rushdie's novel is the novel which can be presented in web series. But the film adaptation is good. All Characters acted like real life incidents. Their dialogues are also well knighted and have interconnection with each other. We had lots of threates during the movie screening, like Network issue, distraction at home (because we are at home) and errors of hanging mobile also !





2742 words 

16010 Characters

Postcolonialism in Movies


Watching movies for entertainment and watching movies for study purposes is a very different task. Because the way we are watching it indicates our thinking ability to see any particular matter. So in this blog I'm going to discuss postcolonialism in two Bollywood movies. The first is "Lagaan" and the second is "Rang De Basanti". So let's discuss about it. 


Before understand postcolonialism in movie we have to clear our concept of what postcolonialism is. In my earlier blog I have explained what postcolonial term is. Click here.


So let's have a look at Postcolonial elements in both movies. 


Lagaan





I hope you all have watched the movie. If you haven't watched the movie I recommend you to watch it. So here I'm giving the basic information of the film. Lagaan : (translate -  Agricultural tax), released internationally as Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India, is a 2001 Indian Hindi-language epic musical sports film written and directed by Ashutosh Gowariker, and produced by and starring Aamir Khan, along with debutant Gracy Singh and British actors Rachel Shelley and Paul Blackthorne in supporting roles. The film is set in 1893, during the late Victorian period of India's colonial British Raj. The story revolves around a small village in Central India, whose inhabitants, burdened by high taxes, and several years of drought, find themselves in an extraordinary situation as an arrogant British army officer challenges them to a game of cricket, as a wager to avoid paying the taxes they owe. The narrative spins around this situation as the villagers face the arduous task of learning a game that is alien to them and playing for a result that will change their village's destiny. Now let's see how and where we can see the postcolonial elements.




 


  • Postcolonial study of the film :-


So in the movie we can see that the people are growing seeds in their farm, with their hard work and the benefits taken by the King and British people. They have to give them Lagaan. It shows how British people are plundering them. 


Another important postcolonial element is cricket. The Britishers introduce the game. Indian people have to learn the game because they want to be free from tax. But the game is still very famous in our country. So why is it played and very famous in India ? Because the game is played by high cast persons ! Yes it's true. You can see in the players of cricket matches many of them belong to upper castes. And we are use to follow them without any critical thinking. That is why this game is very much famous. 


 In the movie we can see that white people have their own way of looking at Indian people. They think that we are only their servants. We were born to be slaves. As well as Indian people have their own way of looking at lower caste people. The upper class people think that they are our servants. They are untouchables. So this conflict is seen in the movie. 


The other thing which is pivotal is the character of Lakha and the character of Elizabeth. We can think that we all are good and all Britishers are bad. But it is not so, because there are some good people and things in Britishers and there are bad people and things in Indians also. Like Lakha, he helped the Britishers because he was jealous of Bhuvan. So here we can say that,


People of any caste, place, colour etc. can be good as well as bad. 


So in this way we can understand postcolonialism in this film. 


Rang De Basanti





Now my second movie discussion is about the film "Rang De Basanti". Here is the basic idea of the film. Rang De Basanti (translate : Paint it saffron) is a 2006 Indian Hindi-language drama film written, produced and directed by Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, and co-written by Rensil D'Silva. The film follows a British film student traveling to India to document the story of five freedom fighters of the Indian revolutionary movement. She befriends and casts five young men in the film, which inspires them to fight against the corruption of their own government. It features an ensemble cast consisting of Aamir Khan, Siddharth, Atul Kulkarni, Soha Ali Khan, Sharman Joshi, Kunal Kapoor and British actress Alice Patten. 



A major point of criticism the film faced was regarding the possibility of the Indian Army attacking students in a radio station. When Rakeysh was questioned about the same in a scriptwriter's conference conducted by the Film Writers Association in the year 2008, he said the following, "So, in 2005, in Allahabad, a bunch of 4 students took the TV station there, and they were shot dead. Everything I did, it was kind of borrowed, as I said right here. Obviously, what I am also learning is the way I tell a story is not real; you can term it as a-real. For maximum impact, for the message to go through, I felt—since the story was against the establishment—let the establishment do it. After all, the establishment did hang Bhagat Singh. After all, the establishment did come down on the innocent, innocent students in the Mandal Commission. After all, the establishment did come down on Tiananmen Square. After all, the establishment did come down when the whole concept of Flower Power emerged in America. So it's all there. It's borrowed, maybe not as realistically, but it is definitely there in society. Let's see the postcolonial elements in the film. 


Here you can see the movie,




 

  • Postcolonial study in the movie :-



When the movie starts we can see that Sue wants to make a documentary film on Indian freedom fighters. But her University denied funds for the documentary because they don't want  to make a documentary on Indian freedom fighters and it is not quite a good thing. 


Another important postcolonial element in the movie is when Sue has come to India, at the airport all taxi drivers encircle her with excitement. It shows Indian mindset and impact toward white people. 


The other thing is when Sue speaks Hindi, DJ is shocked, because he thinks that white people can not speak and understand Hindi. This is a single story in our mind also. We think the white people can not speak our language. 


When we see in the film the scene of the bribe we can understand that Sue is very much surprised as a British. But it is common for Indian. 


Yes, the next element is the fighting scene of Diljit and Pande fighting with each other. At that time Sue patches them up. So why is there a need to white people to patch up ? It shows our division between us. We haven't had unity between us, that is why it's happened. Here is the case of patch up but it might be a case of fighting also. 


The education topic is also a pivotal element of postcolonialism here. Karan's father wants Karan to study in foreign. This is our mindset that foreign countries have the best education systems. It is quite true also, but India also has the best education system also.


Violence and separation of power is shown in the movie as a postcolonial element. When the students are shot at a  radio station. The authorities proved them as terrorists ! They said that they are the terrorists and they were shot now the public are safe. But we know the real story, that they are not terrorists, they are true students. Even they want to awaken all people to what is going wrong with all people. But they choose a path of violence. 


If they were chosen the Gandhian path maybe victory is with them. But they choose the path of violence which is the path of vir Bhagat Singh. And there is a tragic end. 


So in this way I have pointed out some postcolonial elements in both movies. 


1332 words

7561 characters

Thinking Activity : Postcolonial studies

Hello everyone.


To understand clearly what is post colonial study our teacher gives us a task to watch some videos and we are supposed to do postcolonial analysis of that particular video and to see postcolonial elements in the video. So the task assigned by our professor Dilip sir. In this blog I'm going to see the video with some interesting postcolonial point of views. 


Have you ever thought about what post colonialism is ? I have never, because there is no need to know why because there is no sense of seeing the thing in a different perspective and in a different point of view. But the sense developed while studying literature and criticism. 


So the first thing which we have to understand here is what is postcolonialism ? Let's see one video,




 


Postcolonialism is the historical period or state of affairs representing the aftermath of Western colonialism; the term can also be used to describe the concurrent project to reclaim and rethink the history and agency of people subordinated under various forms of imperialism. Postcolonialism signals a possible future of overcoming colonialism, yet new forms of domination or subordination can come in the wake of such changes, including new forms of global empire. Postcolonialism should not be confused with the claim that the world we live in now is actually devoid of colonialism.


"Postcolonialism... involves a studied engagement with the experience of colonialism and its past and present effects"


To understand postcolonialism with examples we have to watch the video of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.



 

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie born on 15 September 1977) is a Nigerian novelist, writer of short stories, and nonfiction. She has written the novels Purple Hibiscus (2003), Half of a Yellow Sun (2006), and Americanah (2013), the short story collection The Thing Around Your Neck (2009), and the book-length essay We Should All Be Feminists (2014). 


Here is the video :- 




 


1.The Danger of single story 


In her speech she tells about the experiences which she felt in her life. This talk helps me to understand postcolonialism. So let's see what are the arguments of her. 


She said that in her childhood she started reading at the age of two, probably four. And she read British and American children's books. And she started writing at the age of seven. Her father was a professor and her mother was an administrator. She grew up in Nigerian campus. In her stories all characters are white and blue eyed. Because she read that type of story. But in Nigeria she said that they don't have snow, they ate mangoes, and they never talked about the weather, because there was no need to. Here we can see cultural differences. 


Then she said that she took inspiration from Chinua Achebe and Camara Laye. She went through a mental shift in her perception of literature. She said that she  realized that people like her, girls with skin the color of chocolate, whose kinky hair could not form ponytails, could also exist in literature. So she proves that literature doesn't have any condition for becoming a great writer. 


She talked about a little house boy, his name was Fide. And her mother used to tell her that Fide's family was very poor. Her mother sent yams and rice, and old clothes to his family. And when Chimamanda didn't finish her food, her mother said to her that,


"Finish your food ! Don't you know ? People like Fide's family have nothing"


Here she tells one interesting experience that when they went to visit Fide's village, his mother showed them a beautiful patterned basket made of dyed raffia that Fide's brother had made. So she was really startled. Because she only listens about Fide's poverty, it is quite impossible for her to see them as they can make something except poorness. 


Another experience she shares and says that when she went to university her roommate was shocked by her skill of speaking fluent English. Why because she had a single story of Africa : a single story of catastrophe. She included in this single story, there was no possibility of African being similar to her in any way, no possibility of feeling more complex than pity, no possibility of a connection as human equals. Why does it happen ? Because we already have a single story for any particular place, person, matter. And that's why our mind doesn't think about other aspects. 


She felt  like others in University. In U.S. Whenever Africa came up, all people turned to her. She added that people have some type of images for particular things. If she was not born in Nigeria, she has some things in her mind for Africa also. 


One of his pivotal arguments is when she spoke at a University and one student told her that it was such a shame that Nigerian men were physical abusers like the father character in adichie's novel.  And she gave answers to the student that recently she had  read a novel named "American Psycho"... and that it was such a shame that young Americans were serial murderers !!! The intention is that you can not blame all for any one person. All are not the same. Because of one we can't judge the whole community. She was able to give the right answer because she had read many stories of America, she didn't have a single story of America. This is what is happening in our today's time also. We haven't enough knowledge about anybody and we started blaming them. Why ? Because somebody tells us about them and we simply believe in them, without any inquiry we made up a single story !


Through the speech she wants to say that stories influence our understanding of  other people and places. She also state confidently that the danger of the single story is that it can result in perspectives based on stereotypes. 


Then she talked about the importance of the stories. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity. 


She ended her speech with this quote,


"When we reject the single story, when we realize that there is never a single story about any place, we regain a kind of paradise".


So overall she wants to tell that there is no single story for any place, there are many sides of people, places. So we have to see them with different perspectives also.


2.We Should All be Feminist 


The video of that talk :-




 

The first thing which we need to understand is what is the meaning of word Feminist 


"A person who believes in social, political and economical equality of the sexes."


Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie talks about feminism in this talk. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie also needs to be appreciated for being an advocate about educating people on the whole about feminism. Some argue that it should not be the responsibility of a woman to teach a man about treating women as humans, and not objects or those that need to be saved. Adichie does not disagree, but at the same time, she points to the imbalance that is being created. Girls are being empowered but at the same time, boys are not being taught, consciously, about equality for all.


This is not creating a balance, where people can co-exist without being discriminated against on the basis of gender. Instead, it’s probably reversing patriarchy. It is important to teach boys and young men to feel comfortable around women who are powerful, who make more money, are more talented or even more vocal. People of all genders, should be made to realise that no one should feel weaker than any other for any reason. 


In another instance, Adichie also talked about how opening the door for a woman is considered an act of chivalry and her point was to open the door for a person, irrespective of their gender.


The point which we can make with Adichie’s blessing, is that men should not be made victims for being men, because that is not what feminism is about. This happens quite a bit and we need to be a little more conscious, because we are all products of patriarchal societies. This is also not to say that people of certain genders, say women, are not to be encouraged to be given reservations, for example. While that is necessary, we also need to be careful before disregarding people’s talents  just like women have been disregarded for centuries, despite being talented and hard working. 


So we can say that the arguments which she makes are convincing with the time. 


3.Third talk : Importance of Truth in Post-truth Era




 

When we think about Truth some people fail to remain true. We are the generation of the 21st century. The Postmodern era in which people are highly civilized. So, in this talk Chimamanda said that speaking lies is speaking lies to yourself. She said in her talk that,


"Be courageous enough to accept your life as messy, your life is not always perfectly matching to your ideology." 


There is also a reference of a poem by Mary Oliver, that Whoever you are, no matter how lonely, The world offers itself to your imagination.


So, she wants to tell us that we have to be true. Not only with others but also with ourselves. So the word has significance in our life. 


4.significant changes


Here I want to say that these talks bring very significant changes in my way of looking at literature and life also. 


The first significant change is to look at others with different aspects not only based on the single story about them. From now I will trust on any matter with my research of that particular matter only. I shouldn't believe what others say. 


The second thing which I learned from Chimamanda Adichie is we have to be true with ourselves. To be true with others is the second thing. The first thing is to be satisfied and to be true and honest with yourself is very pivotal. 


1706 words

9773 characters

"The Alchemist" Book Review

The Alchemist Book written by Paulo Coelho is very interesting book to read. Paulo Coelho is a Brazilian lyricist and novelist. The novel s...