Week 4: Ismene vs. Isma

    One major difference I noticed between Home Fire and Antigone is the characterization and actions of the characters Isma and Ismene. Isma very decidedly chooses to side with Karamat Lone and the media when Parvaiz passes. She explains to Aneeka that she is merely trying to preserve what is left of their family. Obviously, in Shamsie's rendition of the story Aneeka passes before Karamat can detain or punish her. We as readers are left to interpret how Isma could have reacted to her sister and Eamonn's death, or what would have happened if Karamat had actually detained Aneeka like Creone does to Antigone. 

Where Antigone differs from Shamsie's retelling is that we are explicitly told how Ismene reacts. Antigone is caught and brought to Creone, only for Ismene to give herself up as well. Antigone even shows some contempt at her sister for doing this, accusing her of stealing her glory in a way. This is different than Aneeka, who wants Isma to side with her, not caring about Isma stealing her glory. I wonder what Shamsie imagines happened to Isma after the novel ends. Is this Isma consistent with the one we've seen in Shamsie's variation, one that is more concerned with maintaining her current family and life than the family she's lost, or would she react like Ismene, despite what she told Aneeka earlier? Would she stand by her sister while she guarded Parvaiz's corpse, if she could have? I think Shamsie would answer no, but I can see both sides.

Comments

  1. Griffin JonesOctober 18, 2022 at 10:22 PM

    I think you bring up a really interesting point about wondering what happens after Home Fire ends. In Antigone, we get to see some of the reactions to the deaths of Antigone and Haemon, but Home Fire ends before the explosion goes off and we are just left to wonder. In some ways its a very beautiful ending, and maybe we know enough about each character to guess how each would react.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 10: Pachinko, Identity, and Family

     Pachinko  is a book so jam-packed with meaning and depth that it would be hard to say everything there is to say about the book in one blog post. The story is a deep examination of identity and belonging- something we've seen in a lot of the more contemporary texts in this class. Pachinko 's wide variety of characters all struggle to feel in place in a society catered towards heterosexual Japanese men. It almost feels cynical in this way, with Solomon and Noa returning to pachinko after working so hard to get an education and move up the social ladder. I think it could be argued that this sort of acceptance, the kind gained from working hard enough to become a model minority, is not the way to find belonging. Family is key here. Society is a hard thing to find belonging in, especially when you exist outside of the accepted and typical behaviors and identities within it. But family is a constant. When society doesn't accept us, our family often does. Noa's happie...
Read more

Week 8: Biblical References

     Pachinko has a lot of biblical references in terms of characters names (which may or not be obvious depending on how familiar you are with the bible). Characters share names with biblical figures whom they share a lot with.     Isak, for example, is very similar to Isaac from the Bible. Abraham, one of the most important patriarchal figures in both Christianity and Judaism, is the father of Isaac. Abraham and his wife have Isaac when they are both very old, as a gift from God, which they are incredibly grateful for. However, God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him, similar to how people from that time may have sacrificed an animal. Abraham is reluctant, but decides to goes through with it. Right before sacrificing his son, an angel stops Abraham. In this sense, Isak and Isaac have a lot in common. Both are 'sacrifices'- Isaac literally and Isak in terms of his selflessness in general and specifically to Sunja.      Noa is clearly a referen...
Read more

Week 3: Smasher Sullivan

     In "The Secret River" by Kate Grenville, the character of Smasher Sullivan stands out as a powerful representation of the violence and brutality inflicted upon the Indigenous people by white settlers during the colonial period. He definitely shocked me as I read the novel.      From his introduction, where he brags about hanging an Indigenous person, to the end of the novel, Smasher's character is fairly static, showing little to no mercy for the people he encounters. However, one of the most disturbing aspects of Smasher's character is his dehumanization of the Indigenous people. He views them as obstacles and issues to be dealt with, rather than as human beings. This dehumanization serves to justify the violence and exploitation that white settlers inflicted upon the Indigenous people. By removing the personhood from the Indigenous people, it makes the killing, stealing, and other atrocities less morally reprehensible.      It seemed t...
Read more