Take a photo of a barcode or cover
al_devine 's review for:
Samskara: A Rite for A Dead Man
by U.R. Ananthamurthy
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The protagonist, Praneshacharya, is head brahmin in his commune. Throughout the book, we reflect with him as he struggles with, essentially, what we would call a nervous breakdown today. His understanding of himself and his way of life is turned upside down after he commits a “sinful” act and is forced to come to terms with what it means. He is responsible, fairly or unfairly, for determining the funeral rites for the recently deceased brahmin, Naranappa. The central plot of the novel revolves around this death, and what to do about Naranappa's death rites, because he had not lived by the strict code, yet had not been ex-communicated either.
I found Praneshacharya to be more likeable as a character than how I have felt towards other orthodox characters. He has a softness and an authenticity to his desire to help (some may read this another way, I'm sure). He is less prideful, at least during his fall. He feels overburdened with the upkeep of the brahmin ways. His opposite, Naranappa, is presented as a challenge to Praneshacharya's faith and practices. Before he died, Naranappa had teased Praneshacharya - deriding him that he will lose out.And that is the fun of the novel: Naranappa's debauchery and hedonism vs the Acharya and his prejudiced, orthodox traditions. It remains untold who won - although I assume many a reader will have a different take on this i.e traditionalism is dead - especially as it relates to the caste system in India, in which I am no expert.
The book ends before we know how Praneshacharya proceeds in his new and tainted life, but we spend the last third of the book with him as he experiences uncomfortable amounts of shame and anxiety - new and unbearable feelings for him. We travel with him as he is compelled to run from his village, craving anonymity in the city. We are with him when he considers his new choices, the multiple paths forward and what they would mean for him. He is humbled and then prideful again, at peace and then disgusted again, considers dignified and difficult choices bravely but then flees, afraid again. He is confused and looks for mentorship from those he once looked down on, and tried to mentor himself. All of this is so familiar if you have experienced a breakdown, regardless of the circumstance, the continent, the religious context, the decade, the specifics of one’s self-understanding - it is such a gift for a writer to be able to describe how it feels to lose grip of the ground underneath you, and of everything you once thought to be true.
Ramlal Agarwal writes in his review “Samskara was received as an affront to brahmanical order, a deliberate delineation of decadence and debauchery, an attempt to malign brahmins, and project them as morons. The novel is about all that has been said and felt by its critics. But, at another level, it is also a novel about an idealist who wants to live by the norm, falls and struggles to regain his lost position. The overriding message of the novelist is that obsessive traditionalism, fanaticism and exclusivism are the dead end for any society.”
I found Praneshacharya to be more likeable as a character than how I have felt towards other orthodox characters. He has a softness and an authenticity to his desire to help (some may read this another way, I'm sure). He is less prideful, at least during his fall. He feels overburdened with the upkeep of the brahmin ways. His opposite, Naranappa, is presented as a challenge to Praneshacharya's faith and practices. Before he died, Naranappa had teased Praneshacharya - deriding him that he will lose out.
Ramlal Agarwal writes in his review “Samskara was received as an affront to brahmanical order, a deliberate delineation of decadence and debauchery, an attempt to malign brahmins, and project them as morons. The novel is about all that has been said and felt by its critics. But, at another level, it is also a novel about an idealist who wants to live by the norm, falls and struggles to regain his lost position. The overriding message of the novelist is that obsessive traditionalism, fanaticism and exclusivism are the dead end for any society.”
As someone reading from afar in the UK, and decades later, I didn’t receive the novel as biased against either way of life, but as one showing all the nuances and difficulties of both - and expressing all the pain of existing in either framework. (I understand from researching afterwards that the context in which it was written does suggest some strong opinions!) The book encourages a exploration of one's own position on a sort of Praneshacharya-to-Naranappa spectrum - where is one uncomfortable with societal restraints and where have freedoms been won?
I think we should all be so lucky as to come across Praneshacharya and hear his story, in order to help us better understand our own struggles. The existential issues encountered in this book are a tale as old as time. Our contexts change but living, and living in a society, is a constant source of struggle for a conscientious person.We don’t know what Praneshacharya does next, and likewise, we have to decide for ourselves what we will do next too. My overarching takeaway from this book is that I have to decide for myself how I think it is best to live, by what rules, and there is no right answer - however if the path I chose is "obsessive traditionalism, fanaticism and exclusivism " then that indeed may foretell a dead end for me, too.
I think we should all be so lucky as to come across Praneshacharya and hear his story, in order to help us better understand our own struggles. The existential issues encountered in this book are a tale as old as time. Our contexts change but living, and living in a society, is a constant source of struggle for a conscientious person.