Analyzing Williams
This article, “Foodways and Subjectivity in Jhumpa Lahiri's Interpreter of Maladies,” written by Laura Anh Williams, is a literary analysis of Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel, Interpreter of Maladies, as stated in her title. This analysis focuses greatly on Lahiri’s use of food as a metaphor in three of the stories from Lahiri’s novel. Those stories are “A Temporary Matter,” “Mrs. Sen’s,” and “This Blessed House.” In “A Temporary Matter,” the opening story of Lahiri’s collection, a young couple named Shukumar and Shoba drift apart as a couple after their child is stillborn. In the story “Mrs. Sen’s,” a little boy is placed in the care of a woman who identifies herself by her husband and his occupation, except for when she is cooking. In the third story Williams analyzes, “This Blessed House,” a young wife named Twinkle follows her academic husband, Sanjeev, to America where she finds Christian objects in their new home and believes that they bless the house. What ties these stories together, according to Williams, is that the characters have a relationship with food. Williams’ thesis in her words is: “In Asian American literature, food as metaphor frequently constructs and reflects relationships to racialized subjectivity and also addresses issues of authenticity, assimilation, and desire,” (Williams, pg. 70). In this essay I will break down Williams’ intended audience and purpose, rhetorical issues, as well as the structure and delivery of her article in order to show that her article is an excellent analysis of Lahiri.
Williams’ intended audience is more than likely to be someone at the collegiate level, whether it be a fellow colleague or a literature student that is interested in or researching Jhumpa Lahiri’s work, specifically Interpreter of Maladies. This can be inferred because it is from the journal Melus, which is a scholastic journal for ethnic literature that was found through a university library database. What also shows that this article is meant for the collegiate audience is the tone of the article. Williams uses a very educated, scholarly language that takes at least a high school senior level education to understand. The time spent with the information presented in this article will not take an extremely long amount of time. Since the article is approximately ten pages the audience should not spend more than ten to fifteen minutes with the information. Because the author is not directly telling the audience to do something or to think about something specifically, the intended purpose of this article is to inform the audience about Lahiri’s work. The language that Williams uses in her article is formal and scholarly which is what is expected in an article meant for professors and English students.
In this article, Williams uses rhetorical issues such as ethos, pathos, and logos in order to establish her credibility. Williams establishes her ethos through the use of her collection of eleven sources and by using those sources throughout her article. The quotes she uses from her sources are effective because they assist with the audience’s understanding of the subject matter. The quotes from Lahiri’s work are shown to aid her audience in understanding the three stories that Williams uses for her article. Williams’ ethos is also established through her status as a professor of English at Purdue University. Since this article is meant for informative purposes, the author is not attempting to evoke any sort of emotional appeal, or pathos. The types of evidence that Williams uses in this article are novels dealing with food in Asian cultures, various articles on Lahiri’s works, as well as an interview with Lahiri herself and two of her works. These kinds of sources are appropriate for Williams’ article because they assist in proving her thesis statement, which is that in Asian American culture food is used as a metaphor for relationships and several other issues. The audience would find these sources valid because they are each related to Lahiri’s work or Asian culture and it’s attitude toward food, and an interview with Jhumpa Lahiri herself.
The structure of the article is very well organized. Williams has broken up her work with section headers by which story she is analyzing and then proceeds to write six to eight paragraphs underneath each subject header. This makes the article clearer for her audience to understand as well as contributes to the readability of the article. Because the work that Williams has chosen to write about is a work of fiction, the means of interpretation are open to the individual. Despite this freedom, Williams focused on proving her initial thesis about food serving as a metaphor in Lahiri’s work.
This article will greatly contribute to my work this semester by giving me an idea of some of the things that Jhumpa Lahiri writes about in her work, Interpreter of Maladies. By understanding the importance of food in three of the stories in her novel will help me not only understand her work, but have insight into what she is trying to get across to her audience. It is the work of writers such as Williams that assist writing students the greatest in their research.
Work Cited
Williams, Laura Anh. "Foodways and Subjectivity in Jhumpa Lahiri's Interpreter of Maladies." Melus 32.4 (2007): 69-79. EBSCO. Web. 5 Sept. 2012.
Williams’ intended audience is more than likely to be someone at the collegiate level, whether it be a fellow colleague or a literature student that is interested in or researching Jhumpa Lahiri’s work, specifically Interpreter of Maladies. This can be inferred because it is from the journal Melus, which is a scholastic journal for ethnic literature that was found through a university library database. What also shows that this article is meant for the collegiate audience is the tone of the article. Williams uses a very educated, scholarly language that takes at least a high school senior level education to understand. The time spent with the information presented in this article will not take an extremely long amount of time. Since the article is approximately ten pages the audience should not spend more than ten to fifteen minutes with the information. Because the author is not directly telling the audience to do something or to think about something specifically, the intended purpose of this article is to inform the audience about Lahiri’s work. The language that Williams uses in her article is formal and scholarly which is what is expected in an article meant for professors and English students.
In this article, Williams uses rhetorical issues such as ethos, pathos, and logos in order to establish her credibility. Williams establishes her ethos through the use of her collection of eleven sources and by using those sources throughout her article. The quotes she uses from her sources are effective because they assist with the audience’s understanding of the subject matter. The quotes from Lahiri’s work are shown to aid her audience in understanding the three stories that Williams uses for her article. Williams’ ethos is also established through her status as a professor of English at Purdue University. Since this article is meant for informative purposes, the author is not attempting to evoke any sort of emotional appeal, or pathos. The types of evidence that Williams uses in this article are novels dealing with food in Asian cultures, various articles on Lahiri’s works, as well as an interview with Lahiri herself and two of her works. These kinds of sources are appropriate for Williams’ article because they assist in proving her thesis statement, which is that in Asian American culture food is used as a metaphor for relationships and several other issues. The audience would find these sources valid because they are each related to Lahiri’s work or Asian culture and it’s attitude toward food, and an interview with Jhumpa Lahiri herself.
The structure of the article is very well organized. Williams has broken up her work with section headers by which story she is analyzing and then proceeds to write six to eight paragraphs underneath each subject header. This makes the article clearer for her audience to understand as well as contributes to the readability of the article. Because the work that Williams has chosen to write about is a work of fiction, the means of interpretation are open to the individual. Despite this freedom, Williams focused on proving her initial thesis about food serving as a metaphor in Lahiri’s work.
This article will greatly contribute to my work this semester by giving me an idea of some of the things that Jhumpa Lahiri writes about in her work, Interpreter of Maladies. By understanding the importance of food in three of the stories in her novel will help me not only understand her work, but have insight into what she is trying to get across to her audience. It is the work of writers such as Williams that assist writing students the greatest in their research.
Work Cited
Williams, Laura Anh. "Foodways and Subjectivity in Jhumpa Lahiri's Interpreter of Maladies." Melus 32.4 (2007): 69-79. EBSCO. Web. 5 Sept. 2012.
Reflection
Although that this is one of the simpler assignments that was asked of us, it was kind of hard for me to write. I had never written an essay analyzing another essay before, which is what made it a challenge. As for pre-writing, I'm not one to draw out a map or anything of my thoughts about this paper. I typically write what comes to mind as soon as possible and then edit as I go along, which is what I did in this paper.