本文是一篇英语论文，笔者根据勒内·吉拉尔的替罪羊理论，文学作品中替罪羊具有一定的特点，并且在神话中替罪羊的身份具有两次转变。替罪羊的出现是为了满足人们模仿的欲望和达到集体净化的目的。据此本文认为对替罪羊的特点和两次转变的探究，会成为对小说更深一步研究的突破点。
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Introduction to Arundhati Roy and The God of Small Things
英语论文怎么写
Arundhati Roy, born in India in 1961, is an Indian writer who writes in English. She left home at the age of sixteen for New Delhi alone. She majored in architecture, which is reflected in her novel The God of Small Things, as most of her characters in the novel have studied architecture at university. After graduation, Roy worked as a reporter and editor, and later engaged in film and literature script writings. When she was thirty-seven years old, she won the British Booker Prize for literature and the American National Book Award for The God of Small Things. During the next ten years, Roy was actively involved in social activities and published a series of political articles. She believes that the advancement of ideas such as democracy and equality has been obstructed by colonial ideas for a long time. The traditional caste system and the history of colonization have become an insurmountable gap. She participated in protests against the corruption of the Indian government and opposed Hindu nationalism. She was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by The Times. The second novel, The Ministry of Outmost Happiest, was published in 2017. Both The God of Small Things and The Ministry of Outmost Happiest present critical thinking about nation, religion, and the caste system. In Roy’s novel, it is not difficult to see Roy’s expectations of the public power.
The God of Small Things focuses on a small village in southern India, told from a child’s perspective. The story revolves around two main plots: one is the accidentaldeath of Sophie Mol, and the other is the secret love of Rahel’s mother, Ammu.
...........................
1.2 Literature Review
Arundhati Roy won the British Booker Prize in 1997 because of this novel, The God of Small Things. Despite the wide variety of comments on Roy’s political stance, the comments on the book The God of Small Things are all favorable. Critics at home and abroad give new explanations of the novel from various perspectives.
Two books are focusing on Roy’s The God of Small Things. Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things: A Reader’s Guide by Julie Mullaney introduces the main characters, plots, backgrounds, and themes of the novel, including the introduction of Roy herself. Antonia Navarro’s book Gender and Caste in The Anglophone-Indian Novels of Arundhati Roy analyzes it from the perspective of the caste system and sexual distinction.
There are many critical essays abroad on the book The God of Small Things. More articles explore the novel from the perspective of post-colonialism, feminism, the technique of narration, and the Arundhati Roy’s political intentions. The representative essays starting from the late 20th century are as follows.
First, much of the previous research pay attention to Arundhati Roy’s attitude towards post-colonialism. Most scholars come to the same conclusion that Arundhati Roy accurately identifies the downsides of post-colonial Indian society and expresses considerable sympathy for the plight of lower class people. Paul Elwork (2004) defines the novel as a story of victims and victimizers in his article “The Loss of Sophie Mol: Debased Selfhood and the Colonial Shadow in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things”. José Saldívar (2007), published an article entitled “Unsettling Race, Coloniality, and Caste”, in which he agrees with Arundhati Roy that we cannotadvocate political identity unless we reshape our small collective identities and rethink who is important in our culture and society. Miriam Nandi (2010), from University of Freiberg reveals a correlation between Arundhati Roy’s political thought and the post-colonial approach, in “Longing for the Lost (M) other Post-colonial Ambivalences in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things”.
.........................
Chapter Two Features of the Scapegoat—Velutha
2.1 A State of Social Crisis
There are two stories in the novel, one in 1969 and the other in 1993. In fact, this period from 1969 to 1993, was also the most chaotic period after India officially separated from Britain. Although unfettered from the British colonial control, the Indian society, without stable development, saw the constant social contradictions and conflicts that have exposed many problems left over by history. There are three kinds of social relations in a crisis: the intensification of the contradiction between the Great Briton and India. The greater contradiction between men and women, the wider gap between the upper class and the pariahs. The appearance of the scapegoat in the novel reflects the desire of people to solve social crisis in the period of social chaos.
First, the contradiction between the British and Indians has intensified. The end of British colonial rule over India in 1947 does not mean that India’s deep-rooted thoughts can be changed easily. Some Indians, who have been under prolonged control of British colonial thought, insist that the British should be noble and should have high status, which contradicts the new idea of independence and equality. Ammu’s husband has tried to please the British factory manager by betraying his wife in order to maintain his job. Margaret Kochamma and Ammu are both porced woman. Ammu is despised and ridiculed by people because of her background as an Indian, while Margaret Kochamma is respected because she is British. This shows that the Britishand Indians are treated differently under similar circumstances.
....................
2.2 Special Marks
The special marks make Velutha different from others. Without special features, he will not have the weakness of being under attacked. First, he is a pariah. Second, as a pariah, Velutha’s ability is incompatible with his identity, which means that Velutha is doomed to be chosen as the scapegoat. What makes him different has become a weakness for others to attack.
Velutha is a pariah. The novel explains the harshness of the caste system, in which Pariahs are different from other castes in various ways and many other castes despise pariahs in different attitudes. All in all, pariahs occupies the lowest rung in the social ladder. Why does Arundhati Roy set Velutha’s identity as a pariah? The first reason is that pariahs are easier to control than other castes. It is easy for Velutha to be framed as a scapegoat. The second reason is that the conflict between identity and ability is obvious. Velutha is too capable for his own class.
First, the novel explains the harshness of the caste system which is the product of the conflicts between Indian cultures. There are hundreds of castes in India and the caste of pariah accounts for the majority of the population. Clear provisions cover almost all aspects of a pariah’s life and two main requirements for pariahs: pariahs cannot do noble work and pariahs cannot marry people of high castes. Because of the strict caste system, pariahs can only do the meanest job and always be ready to serve the high caste.
In Mammachi’s time, Paravans, like other pariahs, were not allowed to walk on public roads, not allowed to cover their upper bodies, not allowed to carry umbrellas. They had to put their hands over their mouths when they spoke, to pert their polluted breath away from those whom they addressed (Arundhati Roy, 2001:73-74).
..................................
Chapter Three The First Transformation of Identity of the Scapegoat ................ 22
3.1 The First Transformation of Identity: Being Persecuted .................. 22
3.2 Causes for Being Persecuted ........................... 24
Chapter Four The Second Transformation of Identity of the Scapegoat ............. 32
4.1 The Second Transformation of Identity: Being Sanctified ............................ 32
4.2 Causes for Being Sanctified .................. 33
Chapter Five Conclusion ................................ 38
Chapter Four The Second Transformation of Identity of the Scapegoat
4.1 The Second Transformation of Identity: Being Sanctified
英语论文参考
Arundhati Roy names the novel The God of Small Things, which means she gives the recognition of Velutha as a god. We can see the similarity between Velutha and Jesus where they are all transgressors who challenge the traditional system of the society. As soon as Velutha appears, Arundhati Roy will affirms Velutha’s qualification as a god in the novel by “The God of Loss. The God of Small Things ” (Arundhati Roy,2001:290).
Similar descriptions of the god of small things are repeated many times in the novel. When we read the novel for the first time, readers will not understand who is the god of small things. However, after reading the whole novel, it is obvious that the god of small things refers to Velutha. The book is named after Velutha, which reflects the recognition by Arundhati Roy and proves that this is a story of a god.
If we compare Velutha with Jesus, it is not difficult to find that the experiences of them are similar that they are treated as scapegoats nearly for the same reasons. First, both Jesus and Velutha have special features different from other people’s. Velutha, as an untouchable, tries to break the barriers of the caste system and Jesus challenges the religious authority of that time. Both of them appear as transgressors, and both challenge the social system and culture. Second, both Jesus and Velutha are victims of collective persecution and their deaths are not driven by one person but a group of people. Persecutors carry out oppression for their own benefit and their purpose is collective purification by eliminating dissidents. Third, both Jesus and Velutha have suffered torture and violence before they die. In summary, the similarities between Velutha and Jesus give the reasons why they become scapegoats. The novel is named The God of Small Things, which is equivalent to giving the recognition of Velutha as a god. As the same as Jesus, he completes the process of sanctification through the second identity conversion of the scapegoat.
............................
Chapter Five Conclusion
Arundhati Roy created The God of Small Things by depicting the underprivileged and disadvantaged in India. Every character in the novel has a certain representative meaning. The existence of scapegoats reflects social problems and the plight of people at the bottom. Arundhati Roy not only describes the history of a family but also alludes to the plight of Indian society at that time. Therefore, the thesis tries to answer the following three research questions: What are the features of the scapegoat in the novel? How has the identity of the scapegoat changed? Why do two transformations occur?
While addressing these issues, the author discovers that Arundhati Roy describes a gray and repressed world in her novel. Everyone in the novel has something to do with the scapegoat incident. Even after the persecution, no one is happy. The scapegoat’s will is ignored, and the people around the scapegoat are marginalized by the society. Even if people sacrifice the scapegoat, social contradictions are not completely solved. This shows that it is unreasonable for the society to solve problems by sacrificing scapegoats.
reference(omitted)