Saunders vs. Horkheimer and Adorno

Let me be completely honest-  George Saunder's In Persuasion Nation has been my least favorite book that we've read this semester. That says loads about the other books that we have read because I still found this book interesting, it was just very confusing at times. Despite the confusion, Saunders comments on the larger issue of cultural brainwashing and uses the means of satire to voice his opinion.

In "Brad Carrigan, American" our main character Brad is a member of a TV show cast and is the most socially aware character on the set. This is seen when Buddy passes away and all the other characters just try and think about the good things instead of grieving. Brad thinks that the response of the other characters isn't appropriate/meaningful enough for a death.

Additionally, Saunders explicitly makes fun of how society makes everyone the same- even physically. "In California, a fad has broken out of regular people having facial surgery to look like their favorite celebrities. Sometimes they end up looking like hideous monsters. Celebrities have taken to paying surprise compassionate visits to the hideous monsters. One hideous monster, whose face looks like the face of a lion roasted in a fire, says the surprise celebrity visit made the whole ordeal worthwhile. In the Philippines, a garbage dump has exploded due to buildup of natural gas emitted by rotting garbage, killing dozens of children digging in the dump for food," (77).

I mentioned this in class, but Saunders, and specifically the story "Brad Carrigan, American" reminded me a lot of Horkheimer and Adorno. In philosophy last year we talked about how Horkheimer and Adorno suggest that all of the culture industry, including the film industry, has become completely homogenized, merely reproducing a single product over and over again, while convincing the audience that they are receiving something unique every time. Specifically, the film industry has made all movies essentially the same at the core. Horkheimer and Adorno then go further by implying that we, as consumers of capitalist products, can do nothing but accept our fate as long as we leave the means of production in the hands of capitalists. Many people in the class had major issues accepting Horkheimer and Adorno’s claims, either unable to comprehend or unwilling to accept the idea that everything created by the Hollywood industry is essentially the same story sold to us over and over again, with different actors and settings that make us feel like we’re watching a unique film.

Overall, Saunders was harder to understand but in the end I agree that he made some compelling statements. Thanks for a great semester everyone!

Interpreting the Interpreter of Maladies

More so than any other short story collection that we have read, Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies has struck a personal chord for me. As the granddaughter and daughter of Korean immigrants, I can relate to Lahiri’s theme of Indians in America struggling with being too American for Indians but too Indian for Americans. 

“When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” was the first story that struck me. Lilia’s parents looking to befriend people from their home country, history lessons about India, discussions of American opportunity, and even the comments about the American education system reminded me a little of my parents and the dynamic of many immigrant homes that I have had the chance to observe. Lilia’s dad in particular is upset about the fact that Lilia isn’t taught much about Indian history at school and he worries that she will grow up unaware and apathetic towards her heritage. Personally, my parents have taken it upon themselves to make sure that I am aware of Korean history and current events as a way to keep the culture alive in our home. The delicate balance that Lilia must preserve of assimilating into American culture without forgetting or abandoning her heritage is one that I empathize with greatly. 

And it only gets worse then I go back to Korea and visit family members. The Das family in “Interpreter of Maladies” is an extreme case of Americanized Indians, but the same initial judgement that Mr. Kapasi expressed towards the family is not an exaggeration. I get looks on the street for being too tan and my parents criticized for not making sure my brothers were fluent in Korean. Yes the Das family may be a little rude and impolite, but I give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe Mr. Kapasi is being judgemental and hypercritical of them. 

Another stark contrast between America and India/Korea that is expressed throughout the book and mirrored in my life is the idea of an individualistic society vs. collectivist society. It’s been noted in class that the two stories that take place in India- “A Real Durwan” and “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar”-  take place in apartment buildings and involve many members of the community while the rest of the stories that take place in American tend to occur in houses and only focus on one or two families. From my own observations, many of my relatives and friends in Korea live with their extended family (grandparents, cousins, etc), while me and most of my friends in America live only with our immediate family. In my personal opinion, that can be positive at times when the community works together to help each other (“The Treatment of Bibi Haldar”), but it can also be a negative and cause people to gossip more and be competitive about ridiculous things (“A Real Durwan”). 

After wrapping up Interpreter of Maladies, I can definitely say that it’s been one of my favorite books from this semester. Lahiri’s style and narrative flow make the stories enjoyable in and of themselves, but my personal connection and ability to empathize on a different level has set this book apart for me. Anyone else on the same boat?