I needs some help with a Family Matters by Mistry Essay

Oooh, it's right here <points> but I haven't read it yet.

Just from what I know of other Rohinton Mistry books, your thesis sounds a little simplistic.

Oh man I really want to read it.

When is the essay due? Maybe I can finish it in time to be of some use...

The essay isnt due until Nov. 4, and the book is a pretty easy read in my opinion. I have changed my introduction to this:

From a determinist's point of view, every event that occurs in our life is a result of an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Within the book Family Matters, strict adherence to Zarathustrian principles greatly inhibits the Chenoy and Contractor families in their struggle for happiness. This is evident in cycle of unhappiness, which began with Nariman's fundamentalist father preventing him from marrying the woman he loves. That action ultimately leads to the unhappiness of each subsequent generation as Yezad turns into Nariman's father.

'K, I think I'm going to read it!

Have wanted to for a long time.

Again without having so much as read the first page, but being familiar with Mistry, I think the "turning into Nariman's father" part might be more to the point than Zarathustrianism (?) per se; more about the effect of rigidly following traditions (no matter what they may be). The consequences of "that's the way it is done."

But I'll read it (no promises, plan to but have lots of stuff to do and not much time to do it in), and let you know what I think.

alright, any help is appareciated so thank you. and thank you for the critisism, i like the advice.

I'm only on page 15 (keep getting interrupted!! why A2K is so nice for what bits and pieces of time I have), but I already dog-eared pages with a couple of good quotes that I think can help with your thesis/ will prove to be part of the point of the book.

I have the paperback version, Vintage International, published November 2003. On the bottom of page 11:



I think the "should" there is strong and likely resonates throughout the rest of the novel.

On page 13, near the bottom, Nargesh Aunty whispers to him (Nariman):



I think that is the anti-thesis, what Mistry is disputing. A seemingly innocent bromide that ends up driving so many people to deep unhappiness.

But I'm just on page 15. :-)

lol, wow. Thanks alot. Well ive retreated my thesis again so ill post it. What you brought is what i would like to do, but my essay has to be within the topic "tragedy is when there is an unsuccessful struggle for happiness"

Throughout human history, no institution has started so many wars or created so much unhappiness as has organized religion. Within the novel Family Matters by Rohinton Mistry, the Chenoy and Contractor families are inhibited in their struggle to achieve happiness by religion in three ways; strict adherence to religious traditions, government corruption by religion and tension between the plethora of religions in India. If there were no organized religions, both families and most everyone else in Bombay would be happier and more contented.

but i really think the doing what your parents want vs. what you want could be worked in better.

very interesting.

Hmm, yeah, I still think religion is a red herring, and that it's more universal than that. (Anywhere where "obey your parents"/ "follow traditions" is still powerful...)

But I'm only on page... well, you know the drill. ;-) (Might have some time to read today.)

ok, new thesis, kind of. Im having alittle trouble though . .

Many authors use their literature as a medium, to make a prophecy for change in the future; rebellion against one's parents ideals in literature can be an allegory for an entire society's thought shift. Rohinton Mistry makes an optimistic prediction for the future of Bombay in Family Matters through the positive generational transition of thought and belief. This is evident as changes in beliefs dealing with corruption, religion,

i dont know what else.

or how about

Determinism is the belief that everything that has happened and will happen is predetermined. One does not truly have any control over the direction of their life; control is merely a delusion. In Family Matters, the Chenoy and Contractor families are unable to be successful in their struggle for happiness because they do not have any real control over their lives, since free will is an illusion. The actions taken by Yezad, Jehangir, Coomy and Jal to improve their lives are utterly unsuccessful, as the family situation by no means improves throughout the book.

Hmmm... that's promising.

Still haven't got much further, but you remind me that I have more dog-eared pages... just a sec...

Top of page 17, more of the same:



I really think you need to have something about the traditional ways in your thesis; "Through the prism of various members of one family, Mistry examines the impact of 'the traditional ways' on modern India." Something like that, probably more about how what he concludes (will feel more confident about this part when I've finished the book). Definitely allow room for ambiguity -- not that it's all bad, not that it's all good, and maybe something about Nariman's fatal flaw.

More quotes:

Hmm, I have page 25, talking about the "shrine"/ curio cabinet, but now I don't remember why. Seems symbolically fraught, I guess.

More possible symbolism, mid-p-33. Nariman has asked Coomy to get out the good dishes. She says:



And more possible symbolism on p. 51, a story from the doctor when Nariman is at the hospital (warning for any lurkers, gross):



Last one, p.84, could be meaningful:



That's as far as I've gotten so far, I suspect that contains the kernel of the other side of it -- that while traditional ways can be stultifying and dangerous, that doesn't mean that the alternative is necessarily so much better.

The "that's promising" above was in reaction to the thesis at the end of last page -- the determinism part of the latest one is very good and I think you can fit that in, the rest feels a bit narrow. (Hope I'm actually being helpful and not just more confusing...!)

I think the message might be more along the lines of assuming you CAN'T break out of determinism is the problem. (The dishes thing seems to fit there somehow...)

you are being very helpful. Thanks. Im just trying to formulate thoughts within the required topic lines of "tragedy is an unsuccessful attempt at happiness"

So within those lines, i guess im trying to prove not why they arent happy (thats much too hard, not to mention the fact that they may be truly happy) but why they are unsuccessful in their attempts. i think there is a real view of determinism within the book.



So i think that im trying to prove they were unsuccessful in achieving hapiness, despite their desperate attempts to rectify their lives, because of determinism. they had no real control over the outcomes or situations in their lives. Any improvements that happen throughout the book are either very short term, or are not the result of any of the character's efforts.

Im in the mood to write my entire essay today, as it is due this week.

I still think there's a heavy element of the fact that they didn't even try -- they were so worried about breaking the china that they just left it in the cupboard and never even enjoyed it. Nariman seems to think he ruined everyone's life by just going with the flow rather than putting in the effort necessary to be with Lucy despite the obstacles.

I'm in the mood to finish the whole book today so I can give you some perspective beyond the first 85 pages, but am about to leave for several hours and probably won't have time after that, either.

Good luck, though!

I dont know how far you are now, but the Chenoy family eventually has to care for Nariman. I think i might want to do a thesis, saying that the family went the through the five stages of grief.

Shock, Denial, Anger, Depression and Acceptance

The Grief Cycle, developed by Dr. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, is a timeline of phases that a person may go through after facing a traumatic event that shakes the very foundations of their lives. In the novel Family Matters, after having the duty of caring for Nariman thrust on them, the Chenoy family experiences the six phases of the grief cycle; shock, denial, anger, bargaining, grief and acceptance. It is a tragedy that true acceptance of the duty to care for Nariman is not achieved until he is nearly on his deathbed.

Hmmmm....

That's interesting. It strikes me as being a bit off, not quite getting the intentions of the book, but it may fit the parameters of the assignment. You use examples well.

I just finished the book and let me thank you wholeheartedly for goosing me into reading it. I was hugely impressed. Mistry has shown promise throughout, but this is his masterwork (thus far, anyway).

This leapt out at me, if I were writing an essay it might be the starting point:



Random-ish thoughts, not sure if I'll have time to get all of the quotes I dog-eared down here, and also not sure if it would be of any use to you at this point -- I know your assignment is due very soon (Tuesday?). If it's too late to be of use, maybe it can just turn into a discussion of the book (open to anyone else who has read it, too...)

I think that Yezad's embrace of spirituality at the end is not actually supposed to be seen as a good thing. I think it's seen as a sign of weakness, surrender. He tried to take matters into his own hands and it backfired horribly; he then decides that it is better to just trust in god, and when he starts to do so, things work out, and that seals the deal for him. He is trying to be a good man like his father (recipient of the clock for his integrity) but he doesn't have the outlet of work to allow him to do this good, and so tries to emulate his father by going back to his religious roots. But his core is already compromised, a core that was genuinely good though flawed, and he becomes a worse and worse person; which he tries to compensate for by becoming more and more pious.

I think Mistry is saying something about religious zealots of all types, there, and especially mirroring how Yezad develops with the Shiv Sena people who murdered his boss.

I loved the character of Mr. Kapur (Yezad's boss), loved his love of Bombay. Very interesting to read a more modern version of Bombay, very convincing, very sad. Shiv Sena has been the boogeyman in several Rushdie books, interesting to see them from another angle.

I just read a book to my daughter that contained the phrase, "And they were happy, though they didn't know it." That resonated for me with this book as well. Of course it was awful and cramped and upsetting at Pleasant Villa, but at the same time there was the wonderful bonding between Jehangir and Nariman, Murad's joy at being out in his tent, Roxana's fulfillment at being such a help to her father. Yezad's persistent tetchiness and the extreme lack of money were the only things that really were awful about it, and when everything is "solved" by moving to Chateau Felicity, there are just new problems and everyone is unhappier than ever.

The only hope is that Nariman has sufficiently gotten through to Murad that Murad will stand up for himself, no matter who he falls in love with. In that way the cycle may finally be broken -- though Mistry leaves this question open by ending the book when he does.

I loved the character of Mr. Kapur (Yezad's boss), loved his love of Bombay. Very interesting to read a more modern version of Bombay, very convincing, very sad. Shiv Sena has been the boogeyman in several Rushdie books, interesting to see them from another angle.

Sorry, it is too late lol. But the essay I posted was only a rough copy, some quotes have been changed, and wording as well. IF you would like to turn it into a discussion, I would happily participate.

I also see Yezad's change at the end of the book as a bad thing. He gives up, and gives himself to a higher power. So that he may not have to worry about anything anymore. I use this as a form of acceptance (comming to terms) in my essay, but there are other ways it could go.