Monday, October 16, 2017

Due Wednesday, October 18th - "Gogol" by Jhumpa Lahiri

Please read "Character" in the Norton Anthology, pages 102-107.  Next, read the following short story by Jhumpa Lahiri, keeping your eyes on the authors' use of characterization, as well as her use of "The Overcoat" as a allusion  in her short story.  Please compose a blog response, sharing those insights.  Note:  We will read "The Overcoat" next, so questions will hopefully be answered when we engage with the work of Nikolai Gogol.

"Gogol"
by Jhumpa Lahiri


In a hospital waiting room in Cambridge, Ashoke Ganguli hunches over a Boston Globe from a month ago, abandoned on a neighboring chair. He reads about the riots that took place during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and about Dr. Benjamin Spock, the baby doctor, being sentenced to two years in jail for threatening to counsel draft evaders. The Favre Leuba strapped to his wrist is running six minutes ahead of the large gray-faced clock on the wall. It is four-thirty in the morning.
He desperately needs a cup of tea, not having managed to make one before leaving the house. But the machine in the corridor dispenses only coffee, tepid at best, in paper cups. He takes off his thick-rimmed glasses, fitted by a Calcutta optometrist, and polishes the lenses with the cotton handkerchief he always keeps in his pocket, “A” for Ashoke embroidered by his mother in light-blue thread. His black hair, normally combed back neatly from his forehead, is dishevelled, sections of it on end. He stands and begins pacing, as the other expectant fathers do. The men wait with cigars, flowers, address books, bottles of champagne. They smoke cigarettes, ashing onto the floor. Ashoke, a doctoral candidate in electrical engineering at M.I.T., is indifferent to such indulgences. He neither smokes nor drinks alcohol of any kind. Ashima is the one who keeps all their addresses, in a small notebook she carries in her purse. It has never occurred to him to buy his wife flowers.
He returns to the Globe, still pacing as he reads. A slight limp causes Ashoke’s right foot to drag almost imperceptibly with each step. Since childhood he has had the habit and the ability to read while walking, holding a book in one hand on his way to school, from room to room in his parents’ three-story house in Alipore, and up and down the red clay stairs. Nothing roused him. Nothing distracted him. Nothing caused him to stumble. As a teen-ager he had gone through all of Dickens. He read newer authors as well, Graham Greene and Somerset Maugham, all purchased from his favorite stall on College Street with pujo money. But most of all he loved the Russians. His paternal grandfather, a former professor of European literature at Calcutta University, had read from them aloud in English translation when Ashoke was a boy. Each day at teatime, as his brothers and sisters played kabadi and cricket outside, Ashoke would go to his grandfather’s room, and for an hour his grandfather would read supine on the bed, his ankles crossed and the book propped open on his chest, Ashoke curled at his side. For that hour Ashoke was deaf and blind to the world around him. He did not hear his brothers and sisters laughing on the rooftop, or see the tiny, dusty, cluttered room in which his grandfather read. “Read all the Russians, and then reread them,” his grandfather had said. “They will never fail you.” When Ashoke’s English was good enough, he began to read the books himself. It was while walking on some of the world’s noisiest, busiest streets, on Chowringhee and Gariahat Road, that he had read pages of “The Brothers Karamazov,” and “Anna Karenina,” and “Fathers and Sons.” Ashoke’s mother was always convinced that her eldest son would be hit by a bus or a tram, his nose deep into “War and Peace”—that he would be reading a book the moment he died.
         One day, in the earliest hours of October 20, 1961, this nearly happened. Ashoke was twenty-two, a student at Bengal Engineering College. He was travelling on the No. 83 Up Howrah-Ranchi Express to visit his grandparents in Jamshedpur, where they had moved upon his grandfather’s retirement from the university. Ashoke had never spent the Durga pujo holidays away from his family. But his grandfather had recently gone blind, and he had requested Ashoke’s company specifically, to read him The Statesman in the morning, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy in the afternoon. Ashoke accepted the invitation eagerly. He carried two suitcases, the first one containing clothes and gifts, the second empty. For it would be on this visit, his grandfather had said, that the books in his glass-fronted case, collected over a lifetime and preserved under lock and key, would be given to Ashoke. He had already received a few in recent years, given to him on birthdays and other special occasions. But now that the day had come to inherit the rest, the day his grandfather could no longer read the books himself, Ashoke was saddened, and as he placed the empty suitcase under his seat he was disconcerted by its weightlessness, regretful of the circumstances that would cause it, upon his return, to be full.
He carried a single volume for the journey, a hardbound collection of short stories by Nikolai Gogol, which his grandfather had given him when he’d graduated from class twelve. On the title page, beneath his grandfather’s signature, Ashoke had written his own. Because of his passion for this particular book, the spine had recently split, threatening to divide the pages into two sections. His favorite story in the book was the last, “The Overcoat,” and that was the one Ashoke had begun to reread as the train, late in the evening, pulled out of Howrah Station with a prolonged and deafening shriek, away from his parents and his six younger brothers and sisters, all of whom had come to see him off, and had huddled until the last moment by the window, waving to him from the long, dusky platform.
Outside the view turned quickly black, the scattered lights of Howrah giving way to nothing at all. He had a second-class sleeper, in the seventh bogie behind the air-conditioned coach. Because of the season, the train was especially crowded, filled with families on holiday. Small children were wearing their best clothing, the girls with brightly colored ribbons in their hair. He shared his compartment with three others. There was a middle-aged Bihari couple who, he gathered from overhearing their conversation, had just married off their eldest daughter, and a friendly, potbellied, middle-aged Bengali businessman wearing a suit and tie, by the name of Ghosh. Ghosh told Ashoke that he had recently spent two years in England on a job voucher, but that he had come back home because his wife was inconsolably miserable abroad. Ghosh spoke reverently of England. The sparkling, empty streets, the polished black cars, the rows of gleaming white houses, he said, were like a dream. Trains departed and arrived according to schedule, Ghosh said. No one spat on the sidewalks. It was in a British hospital that his son had been born.
“Seen much of this world?” Ghosh asked Ashoke, untying his shoes and settling himself cross-legged on the berth. He pulled a packet of Dunhill cigarettes from his jacket pocket, offering them around the compartment before lighting one for himself. “You are still young. Free,” he said, spreading his hands apart for emphasis. “Do yourself a favor. Before it’s too late, without thinking too much about it first, pack a pillow and a blanket and see as much of the world as you can. You will not regret it. One day it will be too late.”
“My grandfather always says that’s what books are for,” Ashoke said, using the opportunity to open the volume in his hands. “To travel without moving an inch.”
“To each his own,” Ghosh said. He tipped his head politely to one side, letting the last of the cigarette drop from his fingertips. He reached into a bag by his feet and took out his diary, turning to the twentieth of October. The page was blank, and on it, with a fountain pen whose cap he ceremoniously unscrewed, he wrote his name and address. He ripped out the page and handed it to Ashoke. “If you ever change your mind and need contacts, let me know. I live in Tollygunge, just behind the tram depot.”
“Thank you,” Ashoke said, folding up the information and putting it at the back of his book.
“How about a game of cards?” Ghosh suggested. He pulled out a well-worn deck from his suit pocket, with an image of Big Ben on the back. But Ashoke politely declined. One by one the passengers brushed their teeth in the vestibule, changed into their pajamas, fastened the curtain around their compartments, and went to sleep. Ghosh offered to take the upper berth, climbing barefoot up the ladder, his suit carefully folded away, so that Ashoke had the window to himself. The Bihari couple shared some sweets from a box and drank water from the same cup without either of them putting their lips to the rim, then settled into their berths as well, switching off the lights and turning their heads to the wall.
Only Ashoke continued to read, still seated, still dressed. A single small bulb glowed dimly over his head. From time to time he looked through the open window at the inky Bengal night, at the vague shapes of palm trees and the simplest of homes. Carefully he turned the soft yellow pages of his book, a few delicately tunnelled by worms. The steam engine puffed reassuringly, powerfully. Deep in his chest he felt the rough jostle of the wheels. Sparks from the smokestack passed by his window. A fine layer of sticky soot dotted one side of his face, his eyelid, his arm, his neck; his grandmother would insist that he scrub himself with a cake of Margo soap as soon as he arrived. Immersed in the sartorial plight of Akaky Akakyevich, lost in the wide, snow-white, windy avenues of St. Petersburg, unaware that one day he was to dwell in a snowy place himself, Ashoke was still reading at two-thirty in the morning, one of the few passengers on the train who was awake, when the locomotive engine and seven bogies derailed from the broad-gauge line. The sound was like a bomb exploding. The first four bogies capsized into a depression alongside the track. The fifth and sixth, containing the first-class and air-conditioned passengers, telescoped into each other, killing the passengers in their sleep. The seventh, where Ashoke was sitting, capsized as well, flung by the speed of the crash farther into the field. The accident occurred two hundred and nine kilometres from Calcutta, between the Ghatshila and Dhalbumgarh stations. More than an hour passed before the rescuers arrived, bearing lanterns and shovels and axes to pry bodies from the cars.

Ashoke can still remember their shouts, asking if anyone was alive. He remembers trying to shout back, unsuccessfully, his mouth emitting nothing but the faintest rasp. He remembers the sound of people half-dead around him, moaning and tapping on the walls of the train, whispering hoarsely for help, words that only those who were also trapped and injured could possibly hear. Blood drenched his chest and the left arm of his shirt. He had been thrust partway out the window. He remembers being unable to see anything at all; for the first hours he thought that perhaps, like his grandfather, he’d gone blind. He remembers the acrid odor of flames, the buzzing of flies, children crying, the taste of dust and blood on his tongue. They were nowhere, somewhere in a field. Milling about them were villagers, police inspectors, a few doctors. He remembers believing that he was dying, that perhaps he was already dead. He could not feel the lower half of his body, and so was unaware that the mangled limbs of Ghosh were draped over his legs. Eventually he saw the cold, unfriendly blue of earliest morning, the moon and a few stars still lingering in the sky. The pages of his book, which had been tossed from his hand, fluttered in two sections a few feet away from the train. The glare from a search lantern briefly caught the pages, momentarily distracting one of the rescuers. “Nothing here,” Ashoke heard someone say. “Let’s keep going.”
But the lantern’s light lingered, just long enough for Ashoke to raise his hand, a gesture that he believed would consume the small fragment of life left in him. He was still clutching a single page of “The Overcoat,” crumpled tightly in his fist, and when he raised his hand the wad of paper dropped from his fingers. “Wait!” he heard a voice cry out. “The fellow by that book. I saw him move.”
He was pulled from the wreckage, placed on a stretcher, transported on another train to a hospital in Tatanagar. He had broken his pelvis, his right femur, and three of his ribs on the right side. For the next year of his life he lay flat on his back, ordered to keep as still as possible while the bones of his body healed. There was a risk that his right leg might be permanently paralyzed. He was transferred to Calcutta Medical College, where two screws were put into his hips. By December he had returned to his parents’ house in Alipore, carried through the courtyard and up the red clay stairs like a corpse, hoisted on the shoulders of his four brothers. Three times a day he was spoon-fed. He urinated and defecated into a tin pan. Doctors and visitors came and went. Even his blind grandfather from Jamshedpur paid a visit. His family had saved the newspaper accounts. In a photograph, Ashoke observed the train smashed to shards, piled jaggedly against the sky, security guards sitting on the unclaimed belongings. He learned that fishplates and bolts had been found several feet from the main track, giving rise to the suspicion, never subsequently confirmed, of sabotage. “holiday-makers’ tryst with death,” the Times of India had written.
During the day he was groggy from painkillers. At night he dreamed either that he was still trapped inside the train or, worse, that the accident had never happened, that he was walking down a street, taking a bath, sitting cross-legged on the floor and eating a plate of food. And then he would wake up, coated in sweat, tears streaming down his face, convinced that he would never live to do such things again. Eventually, in an attempt to avoid his nightmares, he began to read, late at night, which was when his motionless body felt most restless, his mind agile and clear. Yet he refused to read the Russians his grandfather had brought to his bedside, or any novels, for that matter. Those books, set in countries he had never seen, reminded him only of his confinement. Instead he read his engineering books, trying his best to keep up with his courses, solving equations by flashlight. In those silent hours, he thought often of Ghosh. “Pack a pillow and a blanket,” he heard Ghosh say. He remembered the address Ghosh had written, somewhere behind the tram depot in Tollygunge. Now it was the home of a widow, a fatherless son. Each day, to bolster his spirits, his family reminded him of the future, the day he would stand unassisted, walk across the room. It was for this, each day, that his father and mother prayed. But, as the months passed, Ashoke began to envision another sort of future. He imagined not only walking, but walking away, as far as he could, from the place where he was born and where he had nearly died. The following year, walking with a cane, he returned to college and graduated, and without telling his parents he applied to continue his engineering studies abroad. Only after he’d been accepted with a full fellowship, a newly issued passport in hand, did he inform them of his plans. “But we already nearly lost you once,” his bewildered father had protested. His siblings had pleaded and wept. His mother, speechless, had refused food for three days. In spite of all that, he’d gone.
Seven years later, there are still certain images that wipe him flat. They lurk around a corner as he rushes through the engineering department at M.I.T. They hover by his shoulder as he leans over a plate of rice at dinnertime, or nestles against Ashima’s limbs at night. At every turning point in his life—at his wedding, in Calcutta, when he stood behind Ashima, encircling her waist and peering over her shoulder as they poured puffed rice into a fire, or during his first hours in America, seeing a small gray city caked with snow—he has tried but failed to push these images away: the twisted, battered, capsized bogies of the train, his body twisted below it, the terrible crunching sound he had heard but not comprehended, his bones crushed as fine as flour. It is not the memory of pain that haunts him; he has no memory of that. It is the memory of waiting before he was rescued, and the persistent fear, rising up in his throat, that he might not have been rescued at all. At times he still presses his ribs to make sure they are solid.
He presses them now, in the hospital, shaking his head in relief, disbelief. Although it is Ashima who carries the child, he, too, feels heavy, with the thought of life, of his life and the life about to come from it. He was raised without running water, nearly killed at twenty-two. He was born twice in India, and then a third time, in America. Three lives by thirty. For this he thanks his parents, and their parents, and the parents of their parents. He does not thank God; he openly reveres Marx and quietly refuses religion. Instead of thanking God he thanks Gogol, the Russian writer who had saved his life, when the nurse enters the waiting room.

The baby, a boy, is born at half past five in the morning. He measures twenty inches long, weighs seven pounds nine ounces. When Ashoke arrives, the nurse is taking Ashima’s blood pressure, and Ashima is reclining against a pile of pillows, the child wrapped like an oblong white parcel in her arms. Beside the bed is a bassinet, labelled with a card that says “Baby Boy Ganguli.”
“He’s here,” she says quietly, looking up at Ashoke with a weak smile. Her skin is faintly yellow, the color missing from her lips. She has circles beneath her eyes, and her hair, spilling from its braid, looks as though it had not been combed for days. Her voice is hoarse, as if she’d caught a cold. He pulls up a chair by the side of the bed and the nurse helps to transfer the child from mother’s to father’s arms. In the process, the child pierces the silence in the room with a short-lived cry. His parents react with mutual alarm, but the nurse laughs approvingly. “You see,” she says to Ashima, “he’s already getting to know you.”
At first Ashoke is more perplexed than moved, by the pointiness of the head, the puffiness of the lids, the small white spots on the cheeks, the fleshy upper lip that droops prominently over the lower one. The skin is paler than either Ashima’s or his own, translucent enough to show slim green veins at the temples. The scalp is covered by a mass of wispy black hair. He attempts to count the eyelashes. He feels gently through the flannel for the hands and feet.
“It’s all there,” Ashima says, watching her husband. “I already checked.”
“What are the eyes like? Why won’t he open them? Has he opened them?”
She nods.
“What can he see? Can he see us?”
“I think so. But not very clearly. And not in full color. Not yet.”
They sit in silence, the three of them as still as stones. “How are you feeling? Was it all right?” he asks Ashima after a while.
But there is no answer, and when Ashoke lifts his gaze from his son’s face he sees that she, too, is sleeping.
When he looks back to the child, the eyes are open, staring up at him, unblinking, as dark as the hair on its head. The face is transformed; Ashoke has never seen a more perfect thing. He imagines himself as a dark, grainy, blurry presence. As a father to his son. Being rescued from that shattered train had been the first miracle of his life. But here, now, reposing in his arms, weighing next to nothing but changing everything, is the second.

Because neither set of grandparents has a working telephone, the couple’s only link to home is by telegram, which Ashoke has sent to both sides in Calcutta: “With your blessings, boy and mother fine.” As for a name, they have decided to let Ashima’s grandmother, who is past eighty now, who has named each of her six other great-grandchildren in the world, do the honors. Ashima’s grandmother has mailed the letter herself, walking with her cane to the post office, her first trip out of the house in a decade. The letter contains one name for a girl, one for a boy. Ashima’s grandmother has revealed them to no one.
Though the letter was sent a month ago, in July, it has yet to arrive. Ashima and Ashoke are not terribly concerned. After all, they both know, an infant doesn’t really need a name. He needs to be fed and blessed, to be given some gold and silver, to be patted on the back after feedings and held carefully behind the neck. Names can wait. In India parents take their time. It wasn’t unusual for years to pass before the right name, the best possible name, was determined. Ashima and Ashoke can both cite examples of cousins who were not officially named until they were registered, at six or seven, in school. Besides, there are always pet names to tide one over: a practice of Bengali nomenclature grants, to every single person, two names. In Bengali the word for “pet name” is daknam, meaning literally the name by which one is called, by friends, family, and other intimates, at home and in other private, unguarded moments. Pet names are a persistent remnant of childhood, a reminder that life is not always so serious, so formal, so complicated. They are a reminder, too, that one is not all things to all people. Every pet name is paired with a “good name,” a bhalonam, for identification in the outside world. Consequently, good names appear on envelopes, on diplomas, in telephone directories, and in all other public places. Good names tend to represent dignified and enlightened qualities. Ashima means “she who is limitless, without borders.” Ashoke, the name of an emperor, means “he who transcends grief.” Pet names have no such aspirations. They are never recorded officially, only uttered and remembered.

Three days come and go. Ashima is shown by the nursing staff how to change diapers and how to clean the umbilical stub. She is given hot saltwater baths to soothe her bruises and stitches. She is given a list of pediatricians, and countless brochures on breast-feeding and bonding and immunizing, and samples of baby shampoos and Q-Tips and creams. The fourth day there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Ashima and the baby are to be discharged the following morning. The bad news is that they are told by Mr. Wilcox, compiler of hospital birth certificates, that they must choose a name for their son. For they learn that in America a baby cannot be released from the hospital without a birth certificate. And that a birth certificate needs a name.
“But, sir,” Ashima protests, “we can’t possibly name him ourselves.”
Mr. Wilcox, slight, bald, unamused, glances at the couple, both visibly distressed, then glances at the nameless child. “I see,” he says. “The reason being?”
“We are waiting for a letter,” Ashoke says, explaining the situation in detail.
“I see,” Mr. Wilcox says again. “That is unfortunate. I’m afraid your only alternative is to have the certificate read ‘Baby Boy Ganguli.’ You will, of course, be required to amend the permanent record when a name is decided upon.”
Ashima looks at Ashoke expectantly. “Is that what we should do?”
“I don’t recommend it,” Mr. Wilcox says. “You will have to appear before a judge, pay a fee. The red tape is endless.”
“Oh dear,” Ashoke says.
Mr. Wilcox nods, and silence ensues. “Don’t you have any backups?” he asks. “Something in reserve, in case you didn’t like what your grandmother has chosen.”
Ashima and Ashoke shake their heads. It has never occurred to either of them to question Ashima’s grandmother’s selection, to disregard an elder’s wishes in such a way.
“You can always name him after yourself, or one of your ancestors,” Mr. Wilcox suggests, admitting that he is actually Howard Wilcox III. “It’s a fine tradition. The kings of France and England did it,” he adds.
But this isn’t possible. This tradition doesn’t exist for Bengalis, naming a son after father or grandfather, a daughter after mother or grandmother. This sign of respect in America and Europe, this symbol of heritage and lineage, would be ridiculed in India. Within Bengali families, individual names are sacred, inviolable. They are not meant to be inherited or shared.
“Then what about naming him after another person? Someone you greatly admire?” Mr. Wilcox says, his eyebrows raised hopefully. He sighs. “Think about it. I’ll be back in a few hours,” he tells them, exiting the room.
The door shuts, which is when, with a slight quiver of recognition, as if he’d known it all along, the perfect pet name for his son occurs to Ashoke.
“Hello, Gogol,” he whispers, leaning over his son’s haughty face, his tightly bundled body. “Gogol,” he repeats, satisfied. The baby turns his head with an expression of extreme consternation and yawns.
Ashima approves, aware that the name stands not only for her son’s life but for her husband’s. She’d first heard the story of the accident soon after their marriage was arranged, when Ashoke was still a stranger to her. But the thought of it now makes her blood go cold. There are nights when she has been woken by her husband’s muffled screams, times they have ridden the subway together and the rhythm of the wheels on the tracks makes him suddenly pensive, aloof. She has never read any Gogol herself, but she is willing to place him on a shelf in her mind, along with Tennyson and Wordsworth. When Mr. Wilcox returns with his typewriter, Ashoke spells out the name. Thus Gogol Ganguli is registered in the hospital’s files. A first photograph, somewhat overexposed, is taken that broiling-hot, late summer’s day: Gogol, an indistinct blanketed mass, reposing in his weary mother’s arms. She stands on the steps of the hospital, staring at the camera, her eyes squinting into the sun. Her husband looks on from one side, his wife’s suitcase in his hand, smiling with his head lowered. “Gogol enters the world,” his father will eventually write on the back in Bengali letters.

Letters arrive from Ashima’s parents, from Ashoke’s parents, from aunts and uncles and cousins and friends, from everyone, it seems, but Ashima’s grandmother. The letters are filled with every possible blessing and good wish, composed in an alphabet they have seen all around them for most of their lives, on billboards and newspapers and awnings, but which they see now only in these precious, pale-blue missives.
In November, when Gogol is three months old, he develops a mild ear infection. When Ashima and Ashoke see their son’s pet name typed on the label of a prescription for antibiotics, when they see it at the top of his immunization record, it doesn’t look right; pet names aren’t meant to be made public in this way. But there is still no letter from Ashima’s grandmother, and they are forced to conclude that it is lost in the mail. The very next day a letter arrives in Cambridge. The letter is dated three weeks ago, and from it they learn that Ashima’s grandmother has had a stroke, that her right side is permanently paralyzed, her mind dim. She can no longer chew, barely swallows, remembers and recognizes little of her eighty-odd years. “She is with us still, but to be honest we have already lost her,” Ashima’s father has written. “Prepare yourself, Ashima. Perhaps you may not see her again.”
It is their first piece of bad news from home. Ashoke barely knows Ashima’s grandmother, only vaguely recalls touching her feet at his wedding, but Ashima is inconsolable for days. She sits at home with Gogol as the leaves turn brown and drop from the trees, as the days begin to grow quickly, mercilessly dark. Unlike Ashima’s parents, and her other relatives, her grandmother, her dida, had not admonished Ashima not to eat beef or wear skirts or cut off her hair or forget her family the moment she landed in Boston. Her grandmother had not been fearful of such signs of betrayal; she was the only person to predict, rightly, that Ashima would never change. A few days before leaving Calcutta, Ashima had stood, her head lowered, under her late grandfather’s portrait, asking him to bless her journey. Then she bent down to touch the dust of her dida’s feet to her head.
“Dida, I’m coming,” Ashima had said. For this was the phrase Bengalis always used in place of goodbye.
“Enjoy it,” her grandmother had bellowed in her thundering voice, helping Ashima to straighten. With trembling hands, her grandmother had pressed her thumbs to the tears streaming down Ashima’s face, wiping them away. “Do what I will never do. It will all be for the best. Remember that. Now go.”

By 1971, the Gangulis have moved to a university town outside Boston, where Ashoke has been hired as an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the university. In exchange for teaching five classes, he earns sixteen thousand dollars a year. He is given his own office, with his name etched onto a strip of black plastic by the door. The job is everything Ashoke has ever dreamed of. He had always hoped to teach in a university rather than work for a corporation. What a thrill, he thinks, to stand lecturing before a roomful of American students. What a sense of accomplishment it gives him to see his name printed under “Faculty” in the university directory. From his fourth-floor office he has a sweeping view of the quadrangle, surrounded by vine-covered brick buildings. On Fridays, after he has taught his last class, he visits the library, to read international newspapers on long wooden poles. He reads about American planes bombing Vietcong supply routes in Cambodia, Naxalites being murdered on the streets of Calcutta, India and Pakistan going to war. At times he wanders up to the library’s sun-filled, unpopulated top floor, where all the literature is shelved. He browses in the aisles, gravitating most often toward his beloved Russians, where he is particularly comforted, each time, by his son’s name stamped in golden letters on the spines of a row of red and green and blue hardbound books.
Ashoke and Ashima purchase a shingled two-story colonial in a recently built development, a house previously occupied by no one, erected on a quarter acre of land. This is the small patch of America to which they lay claim. Gogol accompanies his parents to banks, sits waiting as they sign the endless papers. Ashoke and Ashima are amazed, when moving by U-Haul to the new house, to discover how much they possess; each of them had come to America with a single suitcase, a few weeks’ worth of clothes. The walls of the new house are painted, the driveway sealed with pitch, the shingles and sundeck weatherproofed and stained. Ashoke takes photographs of every room, Gogol standing somewhere in the frame, to send to relatives in India. He is a sturdily built child, with full cheeks but already pensive features. When he poses for the camera he has to be coaxed into a smile.
In the beginning, in the evenings, his family goes for drives, exploring their new environs bit by bit: the neglected dirt lanes, the shaded back roads. The back seat of the car is sheathed with plastic, the ashtrays on the doors still sealed. Sometimes they drive out of the town altogether, to one of the beaches along the North Shore. Even in summer, they never go to swim or to turn brown beneath the sun. Instead they go dressed in their ordinary clothes. By the time they arrive, the ticket collector’s booth is empty, the crowds gone; there are only a handful of cars in the parking lot. Together, as the Gangulis drive, they anticipate the moment the thin blue line of ocean will come into view. On the beach Gogol collects rocks, digs tunnels in the sand. He and his father wander barefoot, their pant legs rolled halfway up their calves. He watches his father raise a kite within minutes into the wind, so high that Gogol must tip his head back in order to see, a rippling speck against the sky.

The August that Gogol turns five, Ashima discovers she is pregnant again. In the mornings she forces herself to eat a slice of toast, only because Ashoke makes it for her and watches her while she chews it in bed. Her head constantly spins. She spends her days lying down, a pink plastic wastepaper basket by her side, the shades drawn, her mouth and teeth coated with the taste of metal. Sometimes Gogol lies beside her in his parents’ bedroom, reading a picture book, or coloring with crayons. “You’re going to be an older brother,” she tells him one day. “There’ll be someone to call you Dada. Won’t that be exciting?”
In the evenings, Gogol and his father eat together, alone, a week’s worth of chicken curry and rice, which his father cooks in two battered Dutch ovens every Sunday. As the food reheats, his father tells Gogol to shut the bedroom door because his mother cannot tolerate the smell. It is odd to see his father presiding in the kitchen, standing in his mother’s place at the stove. When they sit down at the table, the sound of his parents’ conversation is missing.
Because his mother tends to vomit the moment she finds herself in a moving car, she is unable to accompany Ashoke to take Gogol, in September of 1973, to his first day of kindergarten at the town’s public elementary school. By the time Gogol starts, it is already the second week of the school year. For the past week, Gogol has been in bed, just like his mother, listless, without appetite, claiming to have a stomach ache, even vomiting one day into his mother’s pink wastepaper basket. He doesn’t want to go to kindergarten. He doesn’t want to wear the new clothes his mother has bought him from Sears, hanging on a knob of his dresser, or carry his Charlie Brown lunchbox, or board the yellow school bus that stops at the end of Pemberton Road.
There is a reason Gogol doesn’t want to go to kindergarten. His parents have told him that at school, instead of being called Gogol, he will be called by a new name, a good name, which his parents have finally decided on, just in time for him to begin his formal education. The name, Nikhil, is artfully connected to the old. Not only is it a perfectly respectable Bengali good name, meaning “he who is entire, encompassing all,” but it also bears a satisfying resemblance to Nikolai, the first name of the Russian Gogol’s. Ashoke thought of it recently, staring mindlessly at the Gogol spines in the library, and he rushed back to the house to ask Ashima her opinion. He pointed out that it was relatively easy to pronounce, though there was the danger that Americans, obsessed with abbreviation, would truncate it to Nick. She told him she liked it well enough, though later, alone, she’d wept, thinking of her grandmother, who had died earlier in the year, and of the letter, forever hovering somewhere between India and America.
But Gogol can’t understand why he has to answer to anything else. “Why do I have to have a new name?” he asks his parents, tears springing to his eyes. It would be one thing if his parents were to call him Nikhil, too. But they tell him that the new name will be used only by the teachers and children at school. He is afraid to be Nikhil, someone he doesn’t know. Who doesn’t know him. His parents tell him that they each have two names, too, as do all their Bengali friends in America, and all their relatives in Calcutta. It’s a part of growing up, they tell him, part of being a Bengali. They write it for him on a sheet of paper, ask him to copy it over ten times. “Don’t worry,” his father says. “To me and your mother, you will never be anyone but Gogol.”

At school, Ashoke and Gogol are greeted by the secretary, who asks Ashoke to fill out a registration form. He provides a copy of Gogol’s birth certificate and immunization records, which are put in a folder along with the registration. “This way,” the secretary says, leading them to the principal’s office. Candace Lapidus, the name on the door says. Mrs. Lapidus assures Ashoke that missing the first week of kindergarten is not a problem, that things have yet to settle down. Mrs. Lapidus is a tall, slender woman with short white-blond hair. She wears frosted blue eye shadow and a lemon-yellow suit. She shakes Ashoke’s hand and tells him that there are two other Indian children at the school, Jayadev Modi, in the third grade, and Rekha Saxena, in fifth. Perhaps the Gangulis know them? Ashoke tells Mrs. Lapidus that they do not. She looks at the registration form and smiles kindly at the boy, who is clutching his father’s hand. Gogol is dressed in powder-blue pants, red-and-white canvas sneakers, a striped turtleneck top.
“Welcome to elementary school, Nikhil. I am your principal, Mrs. Lapidus.”
Gogol looks down at his sneakers. The way the principal pronounces his new name is different from the way his parents say it, the second part of it longer, sounding like “heel.”
She bends down so that her face is level with his, and extends a hand to his shoulder. “Can you tell me how old you are, Nikhil?”
When the question is repeated and there is still no response, Mrs. Lapidus asks, “Mr. Ganguli, does Nikhil follow English?”
“Of course he follows,” Ashoke says. “My son is perfectly bilingual.”
In order to prove that Gogol knows English, Ashoke does something he has never done before, and addresses his son in careful, accented English. “Go on, Gogol,” he says, patting him on the head. “Tell Mrs. Lapidus how old you are.”
“What was that?” Mrs. Lapidus says.
“I beg your pardon, Madam?”
“That name you called him. Something with a ‘G.’ ”
“Oh that, that is what we call him at home only. But his good name should be—is”—he nods his head firmly— “Nikhil.”
Mrs. Lapidus frowns. “I’m afraid I don’t understand. ‘Good name’?”
“Yes.”
Mrs. Lapidus studies the registration form. She has not had to go through this confusion with the two other Indian children.
“I’m not sure I follow you, Mr. Ganguli. Do you mean that Nikhil is a middle name? Or a nickname? Many of the children go by nicknames here. On this form there is a space—”
“No, no, it’s not a middle name,” Ashoke says. He is beginning to lose patience. “He has no middle name. No nickname. The boy’s good name, his school name, is Nikhil.”
Mrs. Lapidus presses her lips together and smiles. “But clearly he doesn’t respond.”
“Please, Mrs. Lapidus,” Ashoke says. “It is very common for a child to be confused at first. Please give it some time. I assure you he will grow accustomed.”
He bends down, and this time in Bengali, calmly and quietly, asks Gogol to please answer when Mrs. Lapidus asks a question. “Don’t be scared, Gogol,” he says, raising his son’s chin with his finger. “You’re a big boy now. No tears.”
Though Mrs. Lapidus does not understand a word, she listens carefully, hears that name again. Gogol. Lightly, in pencil, she writes it down on the registration form.
Ashoke hands over the lunchbox, a windbreaker in case it gets cold. He thanks Mrs. Lapidus. “Be good, Nikhil,” he says in English. And then, after a moment’s hesitation, Gogol’s father is gone.
At the end of his first day he is sent home with a letter to his parents from Mrs. Lapidus, folded and stapled to a string around his neck, explaining that owing to their son’s preference he will be known as Gogol at school. What about the parents’ preference? Ashima and Ashoke wonder, shaking their heads.
And so Gogol’s formal education begins. At the top of sheets of scratchy pale-yellow paper he writes out his pet name again and again, and the alphabet in capital and lowercase. He learns to add and subtract, and to spell his first words. In the front covers of the textbooks from which he is taught to read he leaves his legacy, writing his name in No. 2 pencil below a series of others. In art class, his favorite hour of the week, he carves his name with paper clips into the bottoms of clay cups and bowls. He pastes uncooked pasta to cardboard, and leaves his signature in fat brushstrokes below paintings. Day after day he brings his creations home to Ashima, who hangs them proudly on the refrigerator door. “Gogol G.,” he signs his work in the lower right-hand corner, as if there were a need to distinguish him from any other Gogol in the school.
In May his sister is born. This time, Ashoke and Ashima are ready. They have the names lined up, for a boy or a girl. The only way to avoid confusion, they have concluded, is to do away with the pet name altogether, as many of their Bengali friends have already done. For their daughter, good name and pet name are one and the same: Sonali, meaning “she who is golden.” Though Sonali is the name on her birth certificate, the name she will carry officially through life, at home they begin to call her Sonu, then Sona, and, finally, Sonia. Sonia makes her a citizen of the world. It’s a Russian link to her brother, it’s European, South American. Eventually it will be the name of the Indian Prime Minister’s Italian wife.

As a young boy Gogol doesn’t mind his name. He recognizes pieces of himself in road signs: “Go Left,” “Go Right,” “Go Slow.” For birthdays his mother orders a cake on which his name is piped across the white frosted surface in a bright-blue sugary script. It all seems perfectly normal. It doesn’t bother him that his name is never an option on key chains or refrigerator magnets. He has been told that he was named after a famous Russian author, born in a previous century. That the author’s name, and therefore his, is known throughout the world and will live on forever. One day his father takes him to the university library, and shows him, on a shelf well beyond his reach, a row of Gogol spines. When his father opens up one of the books to a random page, the print is far smaller than in the Hardy Boys series Gogol has begun recently to enjoy. “In a few years,” his father tells him, “you’ll be ready to read them.” Though substitute teachers at school always pause, looking apologetically when they arrive at his name on the roster, forcing Gogol to call out, before even being summoned, “That’s me,” his regular teachers know not to give it a second thought. After a year or two, the students no longer tease and say “Giggle” or “Gargle.” In the programs of the school Christmas plays, the parents are accustomed to seeing his name among the cast. “Gogol is an outstanding student, curious and coöperative,” his teachers write year after year on report cards. “Go, Gogol!” his classmates shout on golden autumn days as he runs the bases or sprints in a dash.
As for his last name, Ganguli, by the time he is ten he has been to Calcutta three times, twice in summer and once during Durga pujo, and from the most recent trip he still remembers the sight of the name etched respectably into the pink stone façade of his paternal grandparents’ house. He remembers the astonishment of seeing six pages full of Gangulis, three columns to a page, in the Calcutta telephone directory. He’d wanted to rip out the page as a souvenir, but, when he’d told this to one of his cousins, the cousin had laughed. On taxi rides through the city, going to visit the various homes of his relatives, his father had pointed out the name elsewhere, on the awnings of confectioners, and stationers, and opticians. He had told Gogol that Ganguli was a legacy of the British, an anglicized way of pronouncing his real surname, Gangopadhyay.
Back home on Pemberton Road, he helps his father paste individual golden letters bought from a rack in the hardware store, spelling out Ganguli on one side of their mailbox. One morning, the day after Halloween, Gogol discovers, on his way to the bus stop, that it has been shortened to “Gang,” with the word “green” scrawled in pencil following it. He runs back into the house, sickened, certain of the insult his father will feel. Though it is his last name, too, something tells Gogol that the desecration is intended for his parents more than for Sonia and him. For by now he is aware, in stores, of cashiers smirking at his parents’ accents, and of salesmen who prefer to direct their conversation to Gogol, as though his parents were either incompetent or deaf. But his father is unaffected at such moments, just as he is unaffected by the mailbox. “It’s only boys having fun,” he tells Gogol, flicking the matter away with the back of a hand, and that evening they drive to the hardware store, to buy the missing letters again.

Gogol’s fourteenth birthday. Like most events in his life, it is another excuse for his parents to throw a party for their Bengali friends. His own friends from school were invited the previous day, for pizzas that his father picked up on his way home from work, a basketball game watched together on television, some Ping-Pong in the den. His mother cooks for days beforehand, cramming the refrigerator with stacks of foil-covered trays. She makes sure to prepare his favorite things: lamb curry with lots of potatoes, luchis, thick channa dal with swollen brown raisins, pineapple chutney, sandeshes molded out of saffron-tinted ricotta cheese. All this is less stressful to her than the task of feeding a handful of American children, half of whom always claim they are allergic to milk, all of whom refuse to eat the crusts of their bread.
Close to forty guests come, from three different states. Women are dressed in saris far more dazzling than the pants and polo shirts their husbands wear. A group of men sit in a circle on the floor and immediately start a game of poker. These are all his mashis and meshos, his honorary aunts and uncles. Presents are opened when the guests are gone. Gogol receives several dictionaries, several calculators, several Cross pen-and-pencil sets, several ugly sweaters. His parents give him an Instamatic camera, a new sketchbook, colored pencils and the mechanical pen he’d asked for, and twenty dollars to spend as he wishes. Sonia has made him a card with Magic Markers, on paper she’s ripped out of one of his own sketchbooks, which says “Happy Birthday Goggles,” the name she insists on calling him instead of Dada. His mother sets aside the things he doesn’t like, which is almost everything, to give to his cousins the next time they go to India. Later that night he is alone in his room, listening to side three of the White Album on his parents’ cast-off RCA turntable. The album is a present from his American birthday party. Born when the band was near death, Gogol is a passionate devotee of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. He sits cross-legged on the bed, hunched over the lyrics, when he hears a knock on the door.
“Come in!” he hollers, expecting it to be Sonia in her pajamas, asking if she can borrow his Rubik’s Cube. He is surprised to see his father, standing there in stocking feet, a small potbelly visible beneath his oat-colored sweater vest, his mustache turning gray. Gogol is especially surprised to see a gift in his father’s hands. His father has never given him birthday presents apart from whatever his mother buys, but this year, his father says, walking across the room to where Gogol is sitting, he has something special. The gift is covered in red-and-green-and-gold-striped paper left over from Christmas the year before, taped awkwardly at the seams. It is obviously a book, thick, hardcover, wrapped by his father’s own hands. Gogol lifts the paper slowly, but in spite of this the tape leaves a scab. “The Short Stories of Nikolai Gogol,” the jacket says. Inside, the price has been snipped away on the diagonal.
“I ordered it from the bookstore, just for you,” his father says, his voice raised in order to be heard over the music. “It’s difficult to find in hardcover these days. It’s a British publication, a very small press. It took four months to arrive. I hope you like it.”
Gogol leans over toward the stereo to turn the volume down a bit. He would have preferred “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” or even another copy of “The Hobbit” to replace the one he lost last summer in Calcutta, left on the rooftop of his father’s house in Alipore and snatched away by crows. In spite of his father’s occasional suggestions, he has never been inspired to read a word of Gogol, or of any Russian writer, for that matter. He has never been told why he was really named Gogol. He thinks his father’s limp is the consequence of an injury playing soccer in his teens.
“Thanks, Baba,” Gogol says, eager to return to his lyrics. Lately he’s been lazy, addressing his parents in English, though they continue to speak to him in Bengali. Occasionally he wanders through the house with his running sneakers on. At dinner he sometimes uses a fork.
His father is still standing there in his room, watching expectantly, his hands clasped together behind his back, so Gogol flips through the book. A single picture at the front, on smoother paper than the rest of the pages, shows a pencil drawing of the author, sporting a velvet jacket, a billowy white shirt, and a cravat. The face is foxlike, with small, dark eyes, a thin, neat mustache, an extremely large pointy nose. Dark hair slants steeply across his forehead and is plastered to either side of his head, and there is a disturbing, vaguely supercilious smile set into long, narrow lips. Gogol Ganguli is relieved to see no resemblance.
For by now he’s come to hate questions pertaining to his name, hates having constantly to explain. He hates having to tell people that it doesn’t mean anything “in Indian.” He hates having to wear a nametag on his sweater at Model United Nations Day at school. He hates that his name is both absurd and obscure, that it has nothing to do with who he is, that it is neither Indian nor American but, of all things, Russian. He hates having to live with it, with a pet name turned good name, day after day, second after second. He hates seeing it on the brown-paper sleeve of the National Geographic subscription his parents got him for his birthday the year before, and seeing it perpetually listed in the high honor roll printed in the town’s newspaper. At times his name, an entity shapeless and weightless, manages nevertheless to distress him physically, like the scratchy tag of a shirt he has been forced permanently to wear. At times he wishes he could disguise it, shorten it somehow, the way the other Indian boy in his school, Jayadev, had got people to call him Jay. But Gogol, already short and catchy, resists mutation. Other boys his age have begun to court girls already, asking them to go to the movies or the pizza parlor, but he cannot imagine saying, “Hi, it’s Gogol” under potentially romantic circumstances. He cannot imagine this at all.
From the little he knows about Russian writers, it dismays him that his parents chose the weirdest namesake. Leo or Anton, he could have lived with. Alexander, shortened to Alex, he would have greatly preferred. But Gogol sounds ludicrous to his ears, lacking dignity or gravity. What dismays him most is the irrelevance of it all. Gogol, he’s been tempted to tell his father on more than one occasion, was his father’s favorite author, not his. Then again, it’s his own fault. He could have been known, at school at least, as Nikhil. That one day, his first day of kindergarten, which he no longer remembers, could have changed everything.
“Thanks again,” Gogol tells his father now. He shuts the cover and swings his legs over the edge of the bed, to put the book away on his shelves. But his father takes the opportunity to sit beside him on the bed. For a moment he rests a hand on Gogol’s shoulder. The boy’s body, in recent months, has grown tall, nearly as tall as Ashoke’s. The childhood pudginess has vanished from his face. The voice has begun to deepen, is slightly husky now. It occurs to Ashoke that he and his son probably wear the same size shoe. In the glow of the bedside lamp, Ashoke notices a scattered down emerging on his son’s upper lip. An Adam’s apple is prominent on his neck. The pale hands, like Ashima’s, are long and thin. He wonders how closely Gogol resembles him at this age. But there are no photographs to document Ashoke’s childhood; not until his passport, not until his life in America, does visual documentation exist. On the night table Ashoke sees a can of deodorant, a tube of Clearasil. He lifts the book from where it lies on the bed between them, running a hand protectively over the cover. “I took the liberty of reading it first. It has been many years since I have read these stories. I hope you don’t mind.”
“No problem,” Gogol says.
“I feel a special kinship with Gogol,” Ashoke says, “more than with any other writer. Do you know why?”
“You like his stories.”
“Apart from that. He spent most of his adult life outside his homeland. Like me.”
Gogol nods. “Right.”
“And there is another reason.” The music ends and there is silence. But then Gogol flips the record, turning the volume up on “Revolution 1.”
“What’s that?” Gogol says, a bit impatiently.
Ashoke looks around the room. He notices the Lennon obituary pinned to the bulletin board, and then a cassette of classical Indian music he’d bought for Gogol months ago, after a concert at Kresge, still sealed in its wrapper. He sees the pile of birthday cards scattered on the carpet, and remembers a hot August day fourteen years ago in Cambridge when he held his son for the first time. Ever since that day, the day he became a father, the memory of his accident has receded, diminishing over the years. Though he will never forget that night, it no longer lurks persistently in his mind, stalking him in the same way. Instead, it is affixed firmly to a distant time, to a place far from Pemberton Road. Today, his son’s birthday, is a day to honor life, not brushes with death. And so, for now, Ashoke decides to keep the explanation of his son’s name to himself.
“No other reason. Good night,” he says to Gogol, getting up from the bed. At the door he pauses, turns around. “Do you know what Dostoyevsky once said?”
Gogol shakes his head.
“ ‘We all came out of Gogol’s overcoat.’ ”
“What’s that supposed to mean?”
“It will make sense to you one day. Many happy returns of the day.”
Gogol gets up and shuts the door behind his father, who has the annoying habit of always leaving it partly open. He turns the lock on the knob for good measure, then wedges the book on a high shelf between two volumes of the Hardy Boys. He settles down again with his lyrics on the bed when something occurs to him. This writer he is named after—Gogol isn’t his first name. His first name is Nikolai. Not only does Gogol Ganguli have a pet name turned good name but a last name turned first name. And so it occurs to him that no one he knows in the world, in Russia or India or America or anywhere, shares his name. Not even the source of his namesake.

Plenty of people changed their names: actors, writers, revolutionaries, transvestites. In history class, Gogol has learned that European immigrants had their names changed at Ellis Island, that slaves renamed themselves once they were emancipated. Though Gogol doesn’t know it, even Nikolai Gogol renamed himself, simplifying his surname at the age of twenty-two, from Gogol-Yanovsky to Gogol, upon publishing in the Literary Gazette.
One day in the summer of 1986, in the frantic weeks before moving away from his family, before his freshman year at Yale is about to begin, Gogol Ganguli does the same. He rides the commuter rail into Boston, switching to the Green Line at North Station, getting out at Lechmere, the closest stop to the Middlesex Probate and Family Court. He wears a blue oxford shirt, khakis, a camel-colored corduroy blazer bought for his college interviews that is too warm for the sultry day. Knotted around his neck is his only tie, maroon with yellow stripes on the diagonal. By now Gogol is just shy of six feet tall, his body slender, his thick brown-black hair slightly in need of a cut. His face is lean, intelligent, suddenly handsome, the bones more prominent, the pale-gold skin clean-shaven and clear. He has inherited Ashima’s eyes—large, penetrating, with bold, elegant brows—and shares with Ashoke the slight bump at the very top of his nose.
The courthouse is an imposing, pillared brick building occupying a full city block, but the entrance is off to the side, down a set of steps. Inside, Gogol empties his pockets and steps through a metal detector, as if he were at an airport, about to embark on a journey. He is soothed by the chill of the air-conditioning, by the beautifully carved plaster ceiling, by the voices that echo pleasantly in the marbled interior. A man at the information booth tells him to wait upstairs, in an area filled with round tables, where people sit eating their lunch. Gogol sits impatiently, one long leg jiggling up and down.
The idea to change his name had first occurred to him a few months ago. He was sitting in the waiting room of his dentist, flipping through an issue of Readers Digest. He’d been turning the pages at random until he came to an article that caused him to stop. The article was called “Second Baptisms.” “Can you identify the following famous people?” was written beneath the headline. The only one he guessed correctly was Robert Zimmerman, Bob Dylan’s real name. He had no idea that Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein. That Gerald Ford’s name was Leslie Lynch King, Jr., and that Engelbert Humperdinck’s was Arnold George Dorsey. They had all renamed themselves, the article said, adding that it was a right belonging to every American citizen. He read that tens of thousands of Americans, on average, had their names changed each year. All it took was a legal petition.
That night at the dinner table, he brought it up with his parents. It was one thing for Gogol to be the name penned in calligraphy on his high-school diploma, and printed below his picture in the yearbook, he’d begun. But engraved, four years from now, on a bachelor-of-arts degree? Written at the top of a résumé? Centered on a business card? It would be the name his parents picked out for him, he assured them, the good name they’d chosen for him when he was five.
“What’s done is done,” his father had said. “It will be a hassle. Gogol has, in effect, become your good name.”
“It’s too complicated now,” his mother said, agreeing. “You’re too old.”
“I’m not,” he persisted. “I don’t get it. Why did you have to give me a pet name in the first place? What’s the point?”
“It’s our way, Gogol,” his mother maintained. “It’s what Bengalis do.”
“But it’s not even a Bengali name. How could you guys name me after someone so strange? No one takes me seriously.”
“Who? Who does not take you seriously?” his father wanted to know, lifting his fingers from his plate, looking up at him. “People,” he said, lying to his parents. For his father had a point; the only person who didn’t take Gogol seriously, the only person who tormented him, the only person chronically aware of and afflicted by the embarrassment of his name, the only person who constantly questioned it and wished it were otherwise, was Gogol.
“I don’t know, Gogol,” his mother had said, shaking her head. “I really don’t know.” She got up to clear the dishes. Sonia slinked away, up to her room. Gogol remained at the table with his father. They sat there together, listening to his mother scraping the plates, the water running in the sink.
“Then change it,” his father said simply, quietly, after a while.
“Really?”
“In America anything is possible. Do as you wish.”

With relief, he types his name at the top of his freshman papers. He reads the telephone messages his roommates leave for Nikhil on assorted scraps of paper. He opens up a checking account, writes his new name into his course books. “Me llamo Nikhil,” he says in his Spanish class. It is as Nikhil, that first semester, that he grows a goatee, starts smoking Camel Lights at parties and, while writing papers and before exams, discovers Brian Eno and Elvis Costello and Charlie Parker. It is as Nikhil that he takes Metro-North into Manhattan one weekend and gets himself a fake I.D. that allows him to be served liquor in New Haven bars. It is as Nikhil that he loses his virginity at a party at Ezra Stiles, with a girl wearing a plaid woollen skirt and combat boots and mustard tights. By the time he wakes up, hung over, at three in the morning, she has vanished from the room, and he is unable to recall her name.
There is only one complication: he doesn’t feel like Nikhil. Not yet. Part of the problem is that the people who now know him as Nikhil have no idea that he used to be Gogol. They know him only in the present, not at all in the past. But, after eighteen years of Gogol, two months of Nikhil feel scant, inconsequential. At times he feels as if he’d cast himself in a play, acting the part of twins, indistinguishable to the naked eye yet fundamentally different. At times he still feels his old name, painfully and without warning, the way his front tooth had unbearably throbbed in recent weeks after a filling, threatening for an instant to sever from his gums when he drank coffee, or ice water.
Even more startling is when those who normally call him Gogol refer to him as Nikhil. Though he has asked his parents to do precisely this, the fact of it troubles him, making him feel in that instant that he is not related to them, not their child. “Please come visit us with Nikhil one weekend,” Ashima says to his roommates when she and Ashoke visit campus during parents’ weekend in October, the suite hastily cleared of liquor bottles and ashtrays for the occasion. The substitution sounds wrong to Gogol, correct but off key, the way it sounds when his parents speak English to him instead of Bengali.
At Thanksgiving, he takes the train up to Boston. He feels distracted for some reason, impatient to be off the train; he does not bother to remove his coat, does not bother to go to the café car for something to drink even though he is thirsty. His mother and Sonia have gone to India for three weeks, to attend a cousin’s wedding, and this year Gogol and his father will spend Thanksgiving at the home of friends.
He angles his head against the window and watches the autumnal landscape pass: the spewing pink and purple waters of a dye mill, electrical power stations, a big ball-shaped water tank covered with rust. Abandoned factories, with rows of small square windows partly bashed in, ravaged as if by moths. On the trees the topmost branches are bare, the remaining leaves yellow, paper-thin. The train moves more slowly than usual, and when he looks at his watch he sees that they are running well behind schedule. And then, somewhere outside Providence, in an abandoned field, the train stops moving. For more than an hour they stand there while a solid, scarlet disk of sun sinks into the tree-lined horizon. The lights turn off, and the air inside the train turns uncomfortably warm. The conductors rush anxiously through the compartments. “Probably a broken wire,” the gentleman sitting beside Gogol remarks. Across the aisle a gray-haired woman reads, a coat clutched like a blanket to her chest. Without the sound of the engine Gogol can hear an opera playing faintly on someone’s Walkman. Through the window he admires the darkening sapphire sky. He sees spare lengths of rusted rails heaped in piles. It isn’t until they start moving again that an announcement is made on the loudspeaker about a medical emergency. But the truth, overheard by one of the passengers from a conductor, quickly circulates: a suicide has been committed, a person has jumped in front of the train.
He is shocked and discomforted by the news, feeling bad about his irritation and impatience, wondering if the victim had been a man or a woman, young or old. He imagines the person consulting the same schedule that’s in his backpack, determining exactly when the train would be passing through. As a result of the delay he misses his commuter-rail connection in Boston, waits another forty minutes for the next one. He puts a call through to his parents’ house, but no one answers. He tries his father’s department at the university, but there, too, the phone rings and rings. At the station he sees his father waiting on the darkened platform, wearing sneakers and corduroys, anxiousness in his face. A trenchcoat is belted around his waist, a scarf knitted by Ashima wrapped at his throat, a tweed cap on his head.
“Sorry I’m late,” Gogol says. “How long have you been waiting?”
“Since quarter to six,” his father says. Gogol looks at his watch. It is nearly eight.
“There was an accident.”
“I know. I called. What happened? Were you hurt?”
Gogol shakes his head. “Someone jumped onto the tracks. Somewhere in Rhode Island. I tried to call you. They had to wait for the police, I think.”
“I was worried.”
“I hope you haven’t been standing out in the cold all this time,” Gogol says, and from his father’s lack of response he knows that this is exactly what he has done.
The night is windy, so much so that the car jostles slightly from time to time. Normally on these rides back from the station his father asks questions, about his classes, about his finances, about his plans for the future. But tonight they are silent, Ashoke concentrating on driving. Gogol fidgets with the radio.
“I want to tell you something,” his father says, once they have already turned onto their road.
“What?” Gogol asks.
“It’s about your name.”
Gogol looks at his father, puzzled. “My name?”
His father shuts off the radio. “Gogol. There is a reason for it, you know.”
“Right, Baba. Gogol’s your favorite author. I know.”
“No,” his father says. He pulls in to the driveway and switches off the engine, then the headlights. He undoes his seat belt, guiding it with his hand as it retracts, back behind his left shoulder. “Another reason.”
And, as they sit together in the car, his father revisits a field two hundred and nine kilometres from Howrah. With his fingers lightly grasping the bottom of the steering wheel, his gaze directed through the windshield at the garage door, he tells Gogol the story of the train he’d ridden twenty-five years ago, in October, 1961. He tells him about the night that had nearly taken his life, and the book that had saved him, and about the year afterward, when he’d been unable to move.
Gogol listens, stunned, his eyes fixed on his father’s profile. Though there are only inches between them, for an instant his father is a stranger, a man who has kept a secret, has survived a tragedy, a man whose past he does not fully know. A man who is vulnerable, who has suffered in an inconceivable way. He imagines his father, a college student as Gogol is now, sitting on a train as Gogol had just been, reading a story, and then suddenly nearly killed. He struggles to picture the West Bengal countryside he has seen on only a few occasions, his father’s mangled body, among hundreds of dead ones, being carried on a stretcher, past a twisted length of maroon compartments. Against instinct he tries to imagine life without his father, a world in which his father does not exist.
“Why don’t I know this about you?” Gogol says. His voice sounds harsh, accusing, but his eyes well with tears. “Why haven’t you told me this until now?”
“It never felt like the right time,” his father says.
“But it’s like you’ve lied to me all these years.” When his father doesn’t respond, he adds, “That’s why you have that limp, isn’t it?”
“It happened so long ago. I didn’t want to upset you.”
“It doesn’t matter. You should have told me.”
“Perhaps,” his father concedes, glancing briefly in Gogol’s direction. He removes the keys from the ignition. “Come, you must be hungry. The car is getting cold.”
But Gogol doesn’t move. He sits there, still struggling to absorb the information, feeling awkward, oddly ashamed, at fault. “I’m sorry, Baba.”
His father laughs softly. “You had nothing to do with it, Gogol.”
And suddenly the sound of his pet name, uttered by his father as he has been accustomed to hearing it all his life, means something completely new, bound up with a catastrophe he has unwittingly embodied for years. “Is that what you think of when you think of me?” Gogol asks him. “Do I remind you of that night?”
“Not at all,” his father says eventually, one hand going to his ribs, a habitual gesture that has baffled Gogol until now. “You remind me of everything that followed.”




32 comments:

  1. As with most other Jhumpa Lahiri short stories, Gogol has a very bland plotline on the surface. There is are no antagonists, no unforeseen plot twists, and her main characters fall right within the traditional stereotypes typically aligning with people of their age and background. On a previous blog post, I wrote about how the Lahiri’s reason behind making her stories so simple is to make them seem more realistic. But as I delved further into the novel and explored why Lahiri chose to reference the story The Overcoat, I realized that my previous assumption was wrong. Lahiri’s storylines aren’t simple at all, she just buries the details that give them their added depth a little deeper than most and forces her audience to search for those clues. As an example, her vague reference to Ashoke reading The Overcoat, a story of a man who has integrated so far into his society that his desire for a new overcoat becomes all that is left of his individuality, right before his train crash actually serves as a warning and a discreet form of foreshadowing. As the novel progresses and Ashoke moves to the United States and has a son, the young family is also confronted with this issue of fitting in, albeit on the other end of the spectrum. They are coming from a rich Indian culture, yet they must adapt to certain ways of American life in order to better fit into American society. In no place is this more evident than their kids. Having been brought up in an American school system Gogol renounces many aspects of his Indian culture and even changes his name to Nikhil towards the end of the novel. Reading through Gogol’s transition the first time, it felt very natural, and I even felt myself identifying with him at certain points. However, as I refocused on The Overcoat, I realized that Lahiri is actually warning against over-integration. Gogol’s roots, so to speak, still lie in his Indian culture and name. By renouncing them, he is renouncing a piece of himself and moving towards becoming a machine owned by society, similar to the main character in The Overcoat. As someone who has gone through my own process of moving away from my Chinese background to fall more in line with American societal expectations, I felt the passage speak to me personally and found this experience was truly enriching.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jhumpa Lahiri’s stories are pleasant to read. The plots have a good flow, and the clues just fall in place perfectly. I like how the focus shifts from Ashoke to his son, Gogol. My understanding of Ashoke changes throughout the story. It starts with a background of him, so that he can have a personality and a purpose, and that he won’t just be a father at the end of the story. On the other hand, Gogol’s life has been shown since his birth. Slowly, I get to know his personality and purpose in the story as well. I can always relate to Lahiri’s characters because they are like every other normal people we see in everyday life, which makes her stories more realistic.
    I’m not sure what the book “The Overcoat” is about exactly, but I think that the overall theme of “Gogol” is “who am I”. Ashoke finds his way and place after he tells his son the reason for choosing that name, whereas Gogol finally finds himself after learning the truth behind his name.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Names are such an important piece of one’s identity. I never really thought about it until now, but my name really should have been a part of what I wrote for my journal response the other day about who I am. It’s a part of your identity that you constantly share with others, and if you cannot connect to it, it’s harder to feel “yourself”. Jhumpa Lahiri explores this characterization through names in her short story. Gogol father’s character was shaped by his accident, and he relates his life to Nikolai Gogol’s “The Overcoat” as this was the story that “saved him” from the wreckage. As he says, his son’s name, his existence, and everything that followed “Came out of Gogol’s overcoat”. This experience was such a significant piece of who Gogol’s father is, and can be seen as a part of him that hasn’t changed with assimilating to american culture. However, Gogol himself feels like it’s not as much a piece of his own identity. What’s interesting is that he originally felt a deep connection to the name Gogol, and only wanted to be called that name in elementary school. He was at first afraid of his new name, Nikhil, because it was “A person he didn’t know”. I think children can often “meld” their identity with their parents until they are old enough to form their own. A new identity, shown through a name, is a big leap to take for a child. As he ages, however, Jhumpa shows a true identity search by showing Gogol’s evolution into wanting and accepting a different name. Even though at first, he didn’t feel like “Nikhil”, he needed to find that out for himself, and needed to find a bond and significance to his name in his own way.
    Sosha

    ReplyDelete
  4. In all of the Jhumpa Lahiri stories that we’ve read so far, she has done a really good job making the stories seem real. In our discussion of plot, we talked about the reader never really was quite sure where the story was headed until it got there. This made the stories seem very realistic, because in real life, you don’t necessarily recognize the clues in front of you about where things are headed, but often in hindsight, it becomes obvious to us that things were moving in a certain direction, and the clues become clear. Lahiri also creates real-life stories with how she creates her characters. None of her characters are perfect archetypes: Gogol isn’t just a sullen teenager, Ashima isn’t just a misunderstood father. They have real-life feelings about things, they are conflicted about things, neither is always right or wrong. In this way, Lahiri’s characters are relatable, not necessarily in the problems they face, since I don’t think many of us have had the exact same problems as Gogol has, but in the way they deal with them and react to them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the short story “Gogol” by Jhumpa Lahiri, Lahiri encompases Gogol’s whole life from since before was born. Like most of Lahiri’s stories, a deeper message about human nature is revealed through specific cultural aspects. Lahiri heavily uses characterization in this piece by starting to provide details of Gogol’s background even before his life begins. The event of Ashoke’s train crash is very important in his life, and he chooses the name Gogol for his son to remind him of this importance. He refers to “The Overcoat” as the story that saved his life, which continues into the life of his son. Throughout Gogol’s life, his name is a source of struggle. At first he identifies so strongly with his name that he refuses to be called by a nickname at school. However, as he grows older he begins to part with his name because he does not understand the importance it holds. I can relate to this because like Gogol I have grown up with a name different from the common ones. Teachers often hesitate before calling my name in attendance and I have learned to respond to this almost as quickly as the correct pronunciation of my name. However I have never questioned the importance of my name because I know it is a family name that holds importance to my parents, and this is why they gave it to me. Gogol struggles because his name does not represent his heritage or anything important he is aware of, which causes him to lose a part of his identity. However when Gogol finds out the significance of his name at the end of the story his struggle is finally over.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jhumpa Lahiri's “Gogol” is written with simplistic, yet deep language. I liked how Lahiri began the story by by jumping right into a character’s life. At first, I was not sure how interested I would be in the character (Ashoke), but by the end of it, Lahiri’s precise characterization made him crucial to the plot as he shaped the meaning behind Gogol’s name and later, the reaction Gogol has to it. Also, I thought that the way Lahiri incorporated “The Overcoat” into the story made the it more complex as it connected to the the idea of a characters’ life being thrown into tumult (the incident with the train). It also foreshadowed the beginning of the story which I thought showed how well-crafted and clever Lahiri’s story was. Lahiri’s characterization of Gogol was so well done because she created him based on Ashoke’s past and what the name meant to him; she had Ashoke’s background and his experience of almost getting killed on the train be part of the conflict that arises when Gogol wants to change his name. I agree with Sosha in that names are a significant part of someone’s identity. I also think that they meaning or perception of someone’s name can change as people grow and experience new aspects of life such as when Gogol found out why his father gave him his name and how it represented something that saved him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like how we start off learning about Ashoke’s life in India, and about his love for reading and Russian authors. It helped me see him as more than just a father to Gogol, but as his own person too. It also let me really understand how important “The Overcoat” and Nikolai Gogol are to him, and I don’t think that I would have understood their importance if I had just read about his train accident when Gogol hears about it for the first time. Lahiri creates Ashoke’s character and develops his personality, and then we shift to reading about his son, Gogol. I thought that this was interesting, because just as we felt we really knew the character, we change perspectives. I liked how we could see Gogol grow up, and see how his relationship with his name changed. At first, he feels a strong connection to it, and refuses to be called anything else, and I agree with Sosha and Julia that names can be an important part of identity. When Gogol realizes that he doesn’t feel any connection to his name is when he starts to hate it. I liked how we could see how his character progresses from being attached to his name, to not understanding and hating it, to finally loving it when he hears the story of how he got it. I thought that his character developed realistically, and Lahiri made both him and his father seem like real people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kaby Maheswaran
    Coming from an immigrant family myself, I recognize many of the struggles that Gogol goes through. The little, almost insignificant details that Lahiri adds to the story are very genuine experiences that I have. My full name, Kabetheni, is too hard to pronounce, which pushed me to use my nickname Kaby at school. The two traditions that Gogol has a hard time balancing are almost like a reflection of my own experiences. The characters, point of view, and background were significant when trying to relate to the short story. At first the plot begins in the perspective of Ashoke which made me begin to relate to him, considering him the antihero of the story. Later on, the perspective moves to Gogol forcing me to readjust my perception of the main characters. I think it was very important that Lahiri introduce Ashoke before introducing Gogol because the background of Ashoke’s story gives a clear understanding of the relationship that Gogol and Ashoke have. I think that the overcoat alludes to the power of literature. The power of literature brought Gogol and Ashoke together after several years of a distant relationship. Literature saved Ashoke’s life and allowed a future for him, Ashima, and Gogol. The overcoat was the only thing that held Ashoke back from the edges of death. Gogol, is a novel that embodies the power of literature and discusses the struggles of second generation foreigners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was very relatable for me as well. Although people call me V now, that isn't my full name, and that isn't my full identity. My full name is Visvajit. And it's a peculiar experience being stuck between an "American" society that can't mispronounce your full name no matter how hard they try, and an "Indian" society that is appalled by the fact that my name has been reduced from a beautiful, meaningful, multisyllabic symbol of culture to the twenty-second letter of the English alphabet: V.

      Delete
  9. Jhumpa Lahiri’s Gogol is a cascade of time. After the short introduction to Ashoke in the hospital at the very beginning, the story jumps through the years, showing the reader the events of Ashoke’s adolescence, his near death experience, and switching to focus on Gogol’s life at his birth progressing through his childhood and adolescence. It feels like a time lapse of one life folding into the next, growing and changing with time and stress. This focus on events, large and small, building on one another is where all the characterization in the story originates from. For example, on Gogol’s first day of school he chooses to be called by his pet name, he grows used to being called by it even though it is sometimes mispronounced and made fun of, year pass and he has grown to hate how his name’s lack of inherent meaning and cumbersome structure have become a nuisance in his interactions with other people, He receives an unwanted book by Nikolai Gogol from his father, the presence of the book causes him to realize that his name is even more meaningless and nonsensical than he had previously thought, and his annoyance of his names continual awkwardness and new found meaninglessness provokes him to want to change it. We observe actions in his life build on each other and push Gogol into changing as a person. What makes this great characterization is that all lives are like this. In our lives, huge instantly important events have reverberations throughout the years, smaller events overtime push us into becoming different people, and inauspicious personal experiences can end up becoming massive forces of change for us. This pattern of huge events, smaller gradual events that build on each other, and simpler personal events that have shocking effects on our decisions, is reflected directly in the text. On Gogol’s first day of school he makes a decision that has such a profound effect on his life that he remembers it for years and later regrets it, small annoyances over time concerning his name sour him to it, and his father's personal gift to him on his birthday forces him into a realization that causes him to want to change his name entirely. Gogol’s life follows the same pattern that all our lives do, as does Ashoke’s life, his childhood experiences giving him a close bond with his grandfather, that bond leading him to be caught in a cataclysmic train crash that affects the rest of his life and metaphorically remains with him through his ever present limp, and his experience with the crash leading him to name his son Gogol, a personal yet seemingly innocuous decision that ends up having profound effects and his and his son’s lives. These are realistic feeling life structures that flow organically and cause the characters to feel very real and rounder to the reader. It was the events that happened to the characters and their reactions to them rather than the characters themselves that made for this stories fantastic characterization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Continued:
      Yet, at least for me, this attribute of the story raises a very interesting question. If the things that happen to us are what make us who we are, then who even are we? Gogol’s story is a search for identity. His name gives him no feeling of connectivity with his country, his ancestral home, or anywhere else. He finds no intrinsic meaning in it so he changes it to Nikhil but finds no satisfaction or connection with his new identity either, and returns home to learn that his name actually possesses great personal meaning to his father and shows how important his son is to him, providing Gogol with a newfound sense of identity and connection. But Gogol didn’t choose his own name. His father chose his son’s name because it had great meaning and positive emotional purpose for him, not his son. Ashoke named his son Gogol to remind himself that he has had a good life, not to remind his son of the same. In fact he named his son Gogol at the expense of his son as it ultimately became an emotional burden on him. Gogol was never on the train with his father, he never chose his own name, and even when he had the choice in elementary school, he was a different person and was nervous and made a decision that would negatively affect his own emotional well being for years to come. The name Gogol was forced upon him by his father and the events of a life that he never knew or experienced. In addition all the changes in his life come from external sources, his name, all the frustration of how others can’t pronounce it well, his father's gift of a Nikolai Gogol book. The same is true with Ashoke, with his grandfather molding him into a lover of Russian literature, and the trail crash changing the course of both his life and his son’s life entirely. None of the character choose to change, to develop, to grow. Other people, environments, lifetimes, change them. If that is true then what are we? Are our identities bestowed upon us by others, accumulated over time through the influences of others with to input of our own? Gogol tries to forge his own independent identity by changing his name but he is pushed to do so by outside forces over time and he finds that having his own individual chosen identity is hollow and unsatisfying. We have control over our choices but do we have any over our very beings? After reading the story, I don’t think Gogol did, or Ashoke, and I don’t think any of us do either.

      Delete
  10. The use of characterization for both Gogol and Ashoke help to understand what makes them who they are and how they view eachother. As the reader, we are introduced to Ashoke at his defining moment, and then as the story progresses we see the version of him that blossoms from that trauma. In contrast, we see Gogol through all his stages of life and see how he lacks a full understanding of his father and his name. Gogol was at a constant struggle with his self perception and identity, he did not fully understand what it meant to be named Gogol to his parents, so in an attempt to circumnavigate this he tried to pretend like it wasn’t there. But even when he legally changes his name “the fact troubles him, making him feel in that instant that he is not related to them, not their child”. Because he does not know the missing puzzle piece of the true, all encompassing reason for his name, he does not appreciate its importance. Once his father finally reveals the story of the train crash, Gogol asks, “Is that what you think of when you think of me”. Because of Gogols lack of knowledge of the story, and the built up hatred towards the name because of it, he does not understand the real importance of that time in his fathers life. But when his father concludes with “you remind me of everything that followed”, the disconnect that Gogol has been struggling with is identified in how Gogol now is able to see through his fathers eyes. All this time, Gogol has condemned his parents for choosing such a seemlingly careless and thoughtless name choice that has plagued him his whole life. But now he can finally see himself through his fathers eyes and see how the name is the most sacred representation of blessings Ashoke never thought he would have.

    -Jyllian Kelloway

    ReplyDelete
  11. As a character, Gogol is both relatable and distant at the same time. I sympathize with many of the conflicts and struggles expounded upon by Lahiri, as my parents are both immigrants from India. This fact, in an indirect sense, trickles down to me, a first-generation American citizen. I have two different identities. I speak two languages fluently: Tamil with my family and much of my relatives, as well as English with those at school and outside my bubble of interaction with South Indians. It's interesting, actually, as I switch between these languages inherently, without thinking much about it. With North Indians, I speak Hindi to a certain degree as well. In this sense, my situation is both analogous to Gogol, as there's this juggling of two starkly different cultures, but also quite different, as I don't have any issue balancing these lifestyles. India is a country of over twenty officially recognized languages, all just as different from one another as Chinese and English, each with their own script and their own unique dialects. Just moving from one state to another in India entails a complete change in culture, in language, in attire, in cuisine, and in just about everything else. Just as food for thought: if a mere interstate move is that disparate, think about how drastic an international, intercontinental move would be. This manifests itself in Ashoke, in Gogol, and in the many millions of immigrants there are for whom assimilation is still a struggle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Continued: a thought I had: if I'm too Indian for America, and too American for India, then where do I belong?

      Delete
    2. Your thought really spoke to me. I feel like a sense of belonging is all something we crave and not knowing your place is something I can relate to in other aspects of my life besides culture. To connect it to culture though is very eye opening, especially for me, someone who can sometimes be ignorant towards cultural struggles as I have never experienced it. I think it is a great way to sum up much of Lahiri's work into a single theme/main idea.

      Delete
  12. The protagonist in this story is both Ashoke and Gogol, it leaves the reader wondering who to focus on as the main character shifts from father to son. In a way, the two men are very similar by the end of the story, and the parallel between their looks and the train incidents made it clear that they are meant to be connected in more ways than just blood. However, Gogol, having lived in America his entire life, recognizes that his parents are a part of a culture that he feels more and more distant from as he grows up. While it was his choice to keep the name "Gogol" at a young age, he felt like it made him more and more separated from his peers as he grew older. Another separating factor between the two main characters is how Gogol has no concept of his father's past and therefore just finds his name strange and without meaning. Gogol's feeling of isolation fro his parents, both because of the differences in the two cultures they grew up in, and because of Gogol's lack of knowledge about such an impactful event in his father's life. I also found it interesting that Gogol's parents tried to get him to change his name when he was little, in the typical Bengali way, and he wanted to keep his name because he had began to form his identity and thought it would be strange if he changed his name. Later, however, he wishes that he had complied with the traditions of a culture he felt isolated him from his peers in order for him to feel like he is "normal".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Something that I have always enjoyed about Jhumpa Lahiri’s works are the inclusion of cultural conflicts displayed differently through characterization. In this short story Gogol, it was apparent at first that Ashoke was the main character and readers learned about a tragedy he suffered through and how he was able to get back on his feet (literally and figuratively). I expected for the third person point of view of the narrator to continue throughout the story keeping Ashoke as the main character/protagonist. I do consider Ashoke a hero for his ability to be resilient and transfer his defeated energy into something positive by reading “The Overcoat” by Nikolai Gogol which he sees as his life saver, putting him in two categories of characterization discussed by the Northern Anthology reading. The moment when Ashoke chose to use Gogol as his sons pet name was such an “Aww” moment for me. I was further touched when Gogol refused to go by Nikhil at school. For me, both these actions displayed the love shared by father and son. All the sudden towards the middle of the story, to quick for me to pinpoint the exact moment, I felt that Gogol transitioned into the main character as the focus became more on his childhood to young adulthood and the struggle with his name throughout. As someone who has friends that have unique names due to their culture I can completely understand why Gogol might feel resentment towards his name. As if he isn’t already noticeably different his name also differentiates him from the American culture. Some of my friends like that their name is noticeably unusual as it pertains to them in a unique away. However I think I would feel similarly to Gogol as his odd name doesn't relate to him in anyway as it isn't even Indian or Bengali. Obviously he is oblivious to the meaning his name has to his dad and thinks of it only as a superficial reminder of an out of date author. The way this story was set up giving the thoughts of both Ashoke and his son was enjoyable at times as well as frustrating. As readers we got the full characterization of both, but it was frustrating that their were huge parts of Ashoke’s life that Gogol didn't know about and struggles of Gogol’s that Ashoke could not relate to. At one point I wanted to grab and shake Gogol and say “You idiot, your name has more importance than you could ever know” when he chose to legally change it to Nikhil. My heart ached for Ashoke when his son did this and I was mad that he took so long to tell him the truth behind the name Gogol. In hindsight though I understand he wanted to give his son the chance to find and create his own identity as an American, intertwining the cultural struggles in this story with characterization.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To begin on a personal note, unlike Gogol, I do not get annoyed when people pronounce my name as Ryan or Rohan, as I realize that it is an accident; however, there are times that I wonder at what point teachers will pronounce it correctly. In addition, these experiences have never forced me to want to change the name I have been called for the past 17 years of my existence. The characterization of Ashoke having a limp gives a purpose to his individual self and the role he plays within the story. In the beginning, he is considered to be a rather round character, through his experiences with the train crashing and moving to America, it caused him to proclaim he had lived “Three lives by thirty.” As the reader is introduced to Gogol, the story of Ashoke begins to fall flat as the characterization of Gogol is brought into fruition. Ashoke’s limp remains tied to his identity as it is physically is apart of him, yet, metaphorically, as an immigrant entering a foreign country with no family surrounding him, he, unlike stereotypes pertained to other Lahiri stories of the struggle of assimilation, is able to “introduce a stereotype to destroy” and, like Sonny and his brother, treat the limp as a piece of themselves left behind in order to, not only move on, but so Ashoke can indebt the meaning of his life into his son. (Rip Hayward)

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is a show on Netflix called, Master of None, in it, Aziz Ansari plays a caricature of himself, a first generation Indian-American struggling to become a well-known actor as well as trying to know who he really is in life. In one episode, Ansari, known as Dev in the show, is asked by his father for help to figure out how to connect the father’s messages from his phone, to his Ipad. Dev disregards him, saying he is busy and hangs out with his friend who is also ignoring what his father says. Somewhere in the episode Dev’s father’s past is shown, living in his homeland, bullied as a kid and in pursuit of a gift for himself, a guitar. The father is then told by his mother that such a thing is too expensive, but, when he finally sustains a good life in America, he makes sure to give Dev a guitar as the gift his father never received as a boy. Not knowing the significance of this, Dev neglects his father’s present and keeps to playing video games. As I was reading “Gogol,” where Gogol ignores the gift of a novel by Nikolai Gogol then proceeds in playing the Beatles “White Album,” I was quickly reminded of that scene in Master of None. Instead of just accepting that Gogul would not enjoy it, like Dev’s father did, Gogol’s father, like Rayhan mentioned, introduced “a stereotype to destroy” by initiating more contact and explaining some context of the gift. Before he mentions the true importance of it, he hesitates, and in doing so, gives into the nature of disconnect that the trauma he received from the train ensued and ends his short speech with a sort of, to be continued. Fortunately, the ending brings about the hidden disconnect that had formulated and rejoins itself as the meaning of the pet name that Gogol so inherently began to despise erupted into something that exceeds any meaning he accumulated up until that point. (Rip Hayward)

    ReplyDelete
  16. In all of Jhumpa Lahiri stories, her characterizations of Indian Americans, while showing a typical experience, don't rely on stereotypes. In this story Gogol is simultaneously an Indian American, Bengali, a first generation immigrant, a student, and a child who grew up in the seventies. This creates a 3D character, one who is simultaneously pulled between the expectations of his parents and American society, and one who lives in the gray area between the traditional Bengali traditions his parents grew up in and the world of 1970's Massachusetts. This story follows Gogol from even before his birth into his college years, effectively detailing Gogol's entire childhood. In this way the reader grows up with Gogol, and learns more about him as he gets older. His discomfort surrounding his name becomes his "coming of age" moment where his name becomes symbolic of him forging his own identity. We see Ashoke have one of these moments as well, in fact he claims he has three. Both Ashoke and Gogol's lives were changed by factors outside of their control. Ashoke was in a train accident and Gogol was named because a death in the family. It is what these two characters decided to do about these influences that defined their most formative decisions. Ashoke decided to move to America and Gogol decided to change his name and therefore his identity. What I found interesting is that Gogol decided to revert to the other name his parents picked out for him, and not an Americanized name or one that he chose randomly. To me this says great volumes about his character, primarily that he still has great respect for his parents and his heritage. On a personal note, while my name does not come from a specific culture or heritage, it is certainly unusual and has had a grand impact on my life. I would like to think that my sense of self is outside of my name, but I have a feeling that if my name ever changed I would have lost a part of myself as well. I empathize with Gogol and the weight that a name had on his life.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that Lahiri’s story serves as a warning to not get caught up in the small, arbitrary matters of life. Lahiri chose to reference The Overcoat because it almost mirrors the events of Gogol. In The Overcoat the main character becomes so obsessed with a particular overcoat that when he finally saves up enough money to purchase it and it is stolen he has nothing left to live for. Similarly, Gogol becomes so obsessed with changing his name that he loses sight of the more important things in life. When he finally changes his name, he quickly realizes his mistake. Gogol focused too much on the actual name itself without considering the cons of doing so. His new name did not live up to his expectations. Lahiri also speaks to a much larger truth through Gogol’s actions. Often times, expectations do not meet reality. I can recall going to a Afghani restaurant about two years ago. I expected little from the food as I had never tried Afghani cuisine before and just assumed that it would not taste good. However, when I took the first bite, I was blown away. After such a positive first experience I could not wait until the next time I went to the restaurant. My family returned to the restaurant the following year with loads of excitement. But the food did not taste as good as the first time. Turns out I had set my expectations so high from the first meal that there was no way that the second could have been better. I fell into the same trap as Gogol and the man from The Overcoat.
    The Overcoat reminds me of a story my dad told me about his grandmother. There was a particular fur jacket that his grandmother loved. She had wanted this jacket her whole life but as a young women, never had the money to afford it. Years later she was living comfortably with plenty of money and someone said to her “Since you have the money, why don't you buy that fur jacket you have always wanted?” But, she never bought the jacket. If she did, she said, she would have nothing left in life to dream about and look forward to. She would go to her grave still wanting the jacket she could always afford.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As a lot of people have mentioned, Jhumpa Lahiri often writes stories that seem to originally have an insignificant plot but as readers we are still intrigued. I think our interest in her stories has a lot to do with the simple and genuine characterization she carefully crafts for each of her characters. Although the narration is third person throughout, the beginning of the story is still told from Ashoke's perspective. We see the little things that make Ashoke who he is while he is waiting for his child to be born; his slight limp, the different roles that he and his wife play in their relationship. However after we see Ashoke "now" we find out why he came to be this way. We are transported back to his life and family in Calcutta, and then, of course, to the dreadful train accident. I talked about this a little in my "Who Am I?" response, but it still baffles me how much tragedy can shape who a person truly is, and I think that's because it initiates your very core of the fight or flight response. You learn a lot about yourself during something horrible, and whether that be good or bad, at the end of the day it's still you. Jhumpa Lahiri shows this strange phenomenon with Akoshe. Once we understand Akoshe, we are truly introduced to his son Gogol and the journey of finding his name. As a child, Gogol is so unbelievably proud and certain of his name, so much that he gets mad at his parents when they tell him that he will be called Nikhil at school. Throughout adolescence, however, the tables slowly turn. It is Gogol who, in college, decides to become Nikhil once again. At this point, the story has fully transitioned to being told through the perspective of Nikhil-- most prominently seen by Lahiri no longer calling him "Gogol". We learn about who Nikhil is, especially in regards to Gogol, and it's clear that while they are of course the same person, they're very different. This sort of reminded me of when you get a hair cut or wear an outfit that's "out of character" for you. Of course you're still you, but you also feel like a completely different person. It's so strange how our minds work that way. But we're now hearing from Nikhil's perspective until he gets on the train to journey home to his father for Thanksgiving. Once Nikhil endures trauma of his own on that train ride, a trauma similar to that of his father's, the bond between the two strengthens in a way similar to the bond between two people who have endured the same trauma, like war or even just experienced the same thing. When Nikhil finally arrives in Boston and sees his father, we are no longer hearing of him in the narration as "Nikhil", he is back to being Gogol (even though his parents had accepted calling him Nikhil). Once Gogol is back, the unknown shared affinity between him and his father is what allows Akushe to finally open up to him and tell him the real story of his name. As a reader, I was nervous that we would hear a response to Akushe's honesty from Nikhil, but instead I felt it was a mix of both Nikhil and Gogol responding. We heard the confrontation of Nikhil but the genuineness and compassion from Gogol. To me, this signified that Gogol has finally found himself.
    While reading the story, I couldn't quite grasp what The Overcoat meant in regards to this particular story, but I read Sosha's comment and I had a realization moment and saw what she was saying: the book that literally saved Akushe's life signified a turning point for him, and out of that situation came coming to America, meeting a girl, falling in love, getting married, and having a child, Gogol. Even at the end of the story, Akushe tells Gogol that his name doesn't remind him of the tragedy, but rather all of the wonderful things that came after. Both The Overcoat and Gogol remind Akushe of a time when he was saved and in a way, reborn.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Throughout the narrative, we witness Gogol’s struggles to discover his spiritual self. His discontent with his name, along with the anger that is engendered following his classmates’ mispronunciations, symbolizes Gogol’s initial obsession with names as a “telling” entity. He is so misguided in his attempts to discover himself that he focuses on the insignificant aspects of one’s existentiality, which in this particular case is his name. “The Overcoat”, a novel encompassing an individual’s infatuation with a particular overcoat and his struggles to obtain it, exemplifies this concept and only makes Gogol more confused and frustrated in his effort to discover who he truly is.
    But, as we continue reading, we see Gogol come to terms with his metaphysical self. No longer is he obsessed with his name, as he comes to the realization that it's not an individual’s name that is so imperative to understanding who he or she is, it's the history behind the choice of a name; there’s a reason why many newborn children are named after ancestors or distant relatives. Ashoke chose Gogol’s name as it symbolized his past, his near death experience, and his ability to move onward. This history, in and of itself, is what makes Gogol’s name so purposeful.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jhumpa Lahiri’s “Gogol” highlights one of the the most important parts of one's identity, a person’s name. The name that you are given is something that follows you your whole life. It is how others see you and ultimately how you see yourself. Some people love their name, while others struggle to accept the name that they are given. This is the case for Gogol. When he grows into a young man he begins to regret that he did not take the chance to be called Nikhil when it was presented to him. By telling the story of Ashoke and why he named his son the name he did, before we meet Gogol, gives the reader a more in depth insight into the life of Gogol. We know the real reason why he is named Gogol as we sit and watch him “hate” his name. As a reader this was difficult to read as you watched this teenage boy resent his parents for naming him Gogol, all while knowing that Gogol is the reason that his father was alive today. Lahiri tells Ashoke’s story before introducing Gogol in order to establish more of an understanding about why he is named after Nikolai Gogol. The story then shifts to Gogol and we learn that at first he loves his name but eventually, after growing up in American society, he begins to change his opinion on his name. The relationship that Lahiri establishes between Ashoke and his grandfather is one that the reader hopes will translate into Ashoke and Gogol’s life. However, this is not the case as Gogol does not appreciate his father’s love of Nikolai Gogol. Although they do not have the same relationship that Ashoke had with his grandfather they have a different one. They have a relationship that is filled with respect and love.
    Colleen McConnell

    ReplyDelete
  21. As is consistently done throughout all of Jhumpa Lahiri’s stories, the characters are seemingly everyday, and the plot is simple and somewhat insignificant. So, going into this I somewhat knew what to expect, yet, as I read I didn't feel as though I was dragging my feet through it. The way in which Lahiri characterizes the characters in his stories almost always builds a sense of pit for them because something about the simplicity of the characters and their everyday struggles appeals to our emotions in a very subtle way. The sense of pity comes from the obvious struggles faced by immigrants seemingly forced to assimilate into American culture shown through things as simple as naming their child on their own without the careful thought and aide from family. They also come directly from the characters individual stories such as Ashoke’s. Ashoke, is a smart boy and a bookworm who has a horrible accident and then comes to America. You love him regardless of the fact that in reality, Lahiri has given you minimal information on who Ashoke really is, he has simply targetted your emotions and made you feel as though Ashoke is a simple angel.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gogol, as a character presented in this short story, is somewhat of a jerk. I felt like I understood why he would be upset with his name, that much I understand, but he hadn't been able to get a clear answer as to why he had that name until he was 18? Why?
    He was right when he said that he should have just known, so that he would've fostered the appreciation for it as his parents probably would've wanted him too in the end. Anyways, I felt so shocked when Ashoke nearly died on that train. It just came out of nowhere and I didn't see it coming at all.
    I think it's interesting that Gogol's family chose a more universal name for their daughter. I suppose it only made sense to do it, yet at the same time they seemed like they wanted to preserve their Bengali culture for so long with Gogol that it doesn't seem to make any sense to do a 180 on that. They did say that there was an Indian princess who shared that name, but you can't deny that the choice had been intentional. I would assume that they felt bad for Gogol than, and so that's why I don't understand why they chose to wait.
    If they had been okay with Americanizing their names, as the British had done before with their last names, surely they would've brought it up to Gogol and explained why they picked what they did. I feel sorry for him, yet at the same time he's so rude when he loses himself and becomes Nikhil.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I was a little disappointed by this story. I personally love Lahiri as an author and I think that many of her stories are pulling and wrap the reader in emotion, but this time I felt as through the characters were bland, and the plot line was fairly simple. Ashoke was perceived to be a simple man who other than going through one tragedy early in his life didn't have much substance. He was smart, did was he was told, and eventually made a life for himself. While the reasoning behind naming his son Gogol is touching and meaningful, I felt as though Lahiri did this to make the reader feel something, and unfortunately, I didn’t. The plot line was quite simple. The flashbacks provided a good insight to who Ashoke was and the train crash incident, but if feel as though the whole section where Ashoke was grasping the pages of the book that had saved his life and reaching out into the darkness, was a little cliche and was looking for pitty. I’m sad that this piece didn’t move me, and I wish it did, but sometimes a story just doesn’t grasp a reader.

    ReplyDelete
  24. “Gogol” by Jhumpa Lahiri has a very simple plot that smoothly flows following characters obeying the traditional stereotypes of their culture. The storyline seems so realistic that I felt, at moments, that I was reading a biography rather than a fictional story. Nevertheless, if we dig deeper in the novel, we soon realize that Lahiri’s story has actually several dimensions.
    It starts by being limited to the father’s point of view allowing the readers to see the significant role reading has played in Ashoke’s life. From his childhood, sharing the passion with his grandfather, to later discovering the book “The Overcoat” that played as a saving grace through his tragedy. While following him through his life, we are able to grow to admire him and connect with him. While at the hospital for the birth of his child, he was asked for a name because the letter they were anticipating from their grandmother never came. He instantaneously thought of Gogol. He chose this name for his son because the Nikolai Gogol’s piece is very symbolic and carries a lot of meanings for him. This choice warms the reader’s heart and makes us feel all the love the father has for his son. For him, it’s the story that saved his life and its effects should touch his son’s life as well. Then, the perspective shifts and becomes limited to Gogol’s point of view, to show us how this name is going to play a role in his life. It follows him throughout his childhood and adolescence, causing him some struggles. As a child, he identified himself to it since it was the name his parents used at home to address him. He even refused to be called by his nickname at school. Later on, not realizing the importance the name held for his father, he decides to give it up because it does not represent his culture, and uses Nikhil, the name he was given. Finally, he finds the book his dad gave him on one of his birthdays and that he never read. In it, he is going to learn the significance the name had to his father and the story closes with his interior conflict about to end. Just like her other stories, Lahiri depicts in this novel the struggles immigrants face to fit in an environment that is so different from theirs. A struggle to adjust, a struggle with language, foreign accent, strange names and new mentality. At another level, “Gogol” highlights the role our names play in our identity something that I totally relate to. In fact, just like Gogol, my name comes from Russian and does not reflect neither my American nor my Lebanese identities. It has become, though, a part of me since I can remember. I connected with it and, unlike Gogol who struggled to accept it at the beginning, I pride myself for having a unique name that reflects who I am and that very few share.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I did a little outside research for this blog response. Lahiri's short story now makes a lot more sense in context since I searched up the meaning behind Gogol's "The Overcoat." Roughly put, the Wikipedia summary states that it's about the protagonist losing an overcoat. But how it relates to "Gogol" is his name: Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin. In Russian, it mockingly sounds similar to "Poop the son of Poop," and his last name further solidifies his inferiority by meaning, in context, "to be under someone's shoe." Like Gogol is in the text, Akaky is hopelessly fearful of such a silly name. But where the stories diverge is where Gogol's name is the source of an esteemed author, chosen by his father in remembrance of a tragic accident he was involved in. In a way, Gogol's name shows that the father was able to overcome such a gruesome experience through his love of books. And when his wife became pregnant, Gogol returned again, only in the form of a bouncing baby boy. This transition is shown gradually through the story, going from the peculiarities that make up father Ashoke and his identity, to son Gogol. That one name, the surname of a deceased Russian author, means so little to the son at first, but literally represents the gratitude of life to Ashoke. As Gogol then becomes known as Nikhil, he is suddenly out of place, because everything he has ever known knows him by that name he hated. But as Nikhil learns of his father's accident, the true significance of Gogol reveals itself: the reemergence of a better life, restructuring and regrowth from the beginning, be it the bones in a skeleton or the foundations of a family. It is not just 5 letters arranged in an awkward pronunciation for Western tongues, it is the summation of all his life experiences under the same lingual umbrella. Lahiri clearly characterizes the subject and his family as Indian; for better or worse the majority of the story is spent doing this. But she makes sure to not give away the time often so the reader may possibly connect to it. We only know it takes places in the 60s-80s from the few times the dates are mentioned, had they not been included I would've seen no other noticeable details that would've given away the time. This strategy makes the pursuit of identity a sort of timeless question, pursued by men and women since the beginning of human history. Indian culture serves to further connect Gogol and his family to his ancestral roots, in a sort of battle between tradition vs. modernity.
    I'd also like to share my own two cents on the issue of name insecurity. Unlike a lot of the other students, based on what I've heard in class and on here, I've never really felt insecure about my name. Fully, it is Christopher John Cobino Marchese, the last two words being the last name. It's long, and Marchese is invariably pronounced with "cheese," but I just go by Chris Marchese. I find it funny when people mess up; sometimes I bother to correct people, sometimes I don't. But I don't really care, because Chris is easy enough for everyone to remember. Cheese, Cheeseboy, Topher, and its derivative variants are in good-humored will. I realize that others do not always have this luxury, but I hope that people will realize that it is these long, funny-sounding, ethnic/foreign names that makes a person unique. I's true I may mispronounce Gogol as Google, but all it takes is a small correction and a friendship blossoms. Embrace your names!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jhumpa Lahiri has done it again. She’s given us an opportunity to discuss a specific aspect of our nature in society, in this case, she brings light to the power of names. Names are tied to people since birth (and, at least in Gogol’s case, before then.) She prioritizes characterization by providing us with details of Gogol’s history even before birth. Gogol’s name was chosen by his father Ashoke, a reference to the train crash he experienced and a reminder of the importance it holds. “The Overcoat” is the story of his life being saved, and it follows Gogol through his own life as well. In his younger years, his identity is heavily tied to his given name and he refuses to go by a nickname at school. But, like many other teenagers with ‘unusual’ names, he distances himself from the name “Gogol” as he ages because he lacks understanding of its’ importance and power. He loses this part of his identity because he doesn’t know how to connect with his name. It doesn’t relate to a piece of his heritage and he remains unfamiliar with the role it played in his family. However, by the end of the story Gogol discovers the significance of his name and his inner conflict is resolved.
    I shared my experience with my name in class earlier today and everything I said was genuine. I still struggle with confidently owning my name because I feel as though no one will put in the effort to actually learn it so I accept nicknames and put up with mispronunciations. I never had the experience Gogol did with refusing nicknames because of pride. I still have trouble being proud of my name, despite receiving compliments on it. I wear sweatshirts with my middle name, Antonella, on the sleeve instead of my first name because I at least share that name with my aunt, whom I love dearly. Plus, Antonella is more easy to pronounce. I’ve introduced myself with my nickname, depending on the people I’m interacting with of course. I’ve challenged myself to claim ownership of my full name. I’ve been correcting people’s pronunciation and informing them of my name’s background, but I still have a long way to go. I hope that I’ll soon be able to proudly carry my name with me and acknowledge it as a positive piece of my identity.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Although I see the importance of names and labels demonstrated in Lahiri's story, the part that struck me most was Gogol's relation to his father's accident, and how a trauma like that can impact Ashoke's life for so many years afterward. In this story, Ashoke is essentially characterized by his train crash: it is through that lens that we learn of the importance of Gogol in his life, and at the end, it is the weight of the accident that keeps him from telling Gogol the origin of his name. By bookending the story with the importance of the accident on Ashoke’s life, Lahiri makes this tragedy Ashoke’s defining characteristic. A member of my family was injured in a similar way before I was born, and the repercussions from their incident are still felt today--even the littlest things, from going up stairs to sitting, can bring the unspoken acknowledgement of this tragedy into the air of a room. I find that this pervasiveness reminds me of how Lahiri chooses to characterize Ashoke, a multifaceted and deep character, overwhelmingly through the train accident.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Great Information sharing .. I am very happy to read this article .. thanks for giving us go through info.Fantastic nice. I appreciate this post. audemars piguet replica swiss

    ReplyDelete