Throughout The Hungry Tide there are characters who rely on theory and characters who rely on action. Ghosh demonstrates throughout the novel that while theory is necessary for change, without action change will never come. This contrast between action and theory can be seen through Nirmal and Nilima’s different approaches to provide meaningful change in their community and society as a whole.

Throughout much of the novel Nirmal relies heavily on theory. He was a Marxist and his involvement in one of the parties conferences is what initially triggers his change in mood, ultimately leading Nirmal and Nilima to move out of the city to Lusibari. Once they arrived in Lusibari both are shocked by how destitute the area is. Nirmal turns to Lenin, but as Ghosh writes, “Nirmal, overwhelmed, read and reread Lenin’s pamphlet without being able to find any definite answers.” (67), which suggests that relying on pure theory doesn’t produce meaningful results. This is further enforced in the following passage, demonstrating Nilima’s pragmatic approach their situation, “Nilima, ever practical, began to talk to the women who gathered at the wells and the ponds.“ (67). Nilima’s approach is what leads to the formation of the Women’s Union, which provided a number of services that brought about significant change to the area. Ghosh doesn’t necessarily use this to demonstrate the failings of Marxism as an ideology, but rather that outsiders, which Nirmal initially was, attempting to find solutions for problems they know little about, will often be ineffective. Whereas Nirmal right away works to observe, communicate, and integrate with the population before coming up with a plan of action that turns out to be quite transformative.

However, it is because of Nirmal’s action of writing that we are given a greater glimpse at the events of Morichjhapi. In many ways, Morichjhapi represents the change that Nirmal had yearned for, but could never create. By the time he discovers the transformation that is taking place, he realizes there is little he can do to be a part of it, as he states, “What use indeed, was I? There are people in this world who are truly useful, who lead useful lives: Nilima for instance. But a schoolteacher such as me?” (143). When he does realize he can teach, the next problem he faces is what to teach when much of the population can’t read or write, to which he comes up with the romantic idea of teaching them to dream (143), something he doesn’t get a chance to do. Ultimately, it is only when the people of Morichjhapi face eviction from the island that Nirmal realizes how he must act, as he states, “I have to stay because there’s something I must write” (229).

It is his hope that through his recounting of the events Kanai will be able to bring a semblance of justice to the inhumanity caused at the hands of the government, which ironically was the Communist Party of India. Even though his last little bit of writing did little to change the events that transpire, he is left with hope for what the future may bring. Doing this Ghosh shows that while some actions are not immediately felt, it is possible that their impact can produce change at some point in the future. It is with further irony that he leaves this dream to Kanai, someone who through much of the novel has been anything but, as Nirmal hopes, “…richer in ideals, less cynical, less selfish…” (230). However, it is shown that Nirmal’s words have indeed had an impact on Kanai. In some ways this is a call to action to Kanai, an opportunity at redemption for him and his uncle. At the root of it all it is Nirmal’s hope that his words can prompt Kanai to do what he (Nirmal) felt he did too late, act.

In The Hungry Tide, Amitav Ghosh introduces many ideologies through different characters. Kanai, the first character the reader encounters, in many ways represents a member of the bourgeoisie with many capitalistic characteristics. In the first several pages, Ghosh paints Kanai as an urbane and opportunistic individual who has been inconvenienced by his aunt by asking him to visit her in the Sundarbans, a remote archipelago at the very edges of India and Bangladesh. It is during this initial travel, from city to country, that Ghosh gives the reader an initial view into Kanai’s mindset.

Within the first two paragraphs the reader is presented with Kanai’s ability to “praise and appraise women” (3). Ghosh’s use of the word appraise produces a clear image of a businessperson taking stock of goods and what they could sell them for. Tied to this business-like appraisal is also Kanai’s objectification of Piya, suggesting that capitalism and the patriarchy are interwoven. Much of the reader’s continued encounters of Kanai continue to show his eagerness to come out ahead or profit from opportunities as they present themselves. One such example is when Kanai realizes someone has a better position on the train than him, he “sizes up” the man to see if he can convince him to switch seats. Kanai convinces him not so much with his words, but his external appearance which, as Ghosh writes, “this was clearly someone with a long reach, someone who might be on familiar terms with policemen, politicians and others of importance” (5). Police, politicians, and other decision-making persons are all at the disposal of someone who is well off and they are also all positions that continue to uphold the values of capitalism.

It is not without irony that the area of the Sundarbans Kanai is headed to, Lusibari, was founded by a Scottish Capitalist, Sir Daniel Hamilton or S’Daniel. However, it’s clear S’Daniel’s plans for Utopia didn’t work as planned. It remains to be seen how Kanai’s vanity and self-importance will fit in through the later chapters of the book, but his journey from the bustle of the city to the literal fringes of society would suggest his initial ideals will have a reckoning.

For anyone interested, I’ve added some links to some of the works Canavan referenced in his essay:

Margaret Atwood-Time capsule found on the dead planet

Richard McGuire – Here

May update if I track down anymore.

Octavia Butler presents a harrowing view of the not-to-distant future in the Parable of the Sower. Despite the novel being published in 1993, many of the scenarios presented ring quite to our current era. As N.K. Jemisin states in the forward to the 2019 edition, Butler is “…powerfully prescient…”. Butler’s fictional examples of homelessness, job security, and resource scarcity are especially accurate to the America we live in today.

A gated cul-de-sac in Southern California name Robledo is the main setting for the initial chapters. Gated communities and cul-de-sacs are often associated with the middle class, a quiet neighborhood away from the hustle and bustle of the downtown. The gated community in Butler’s Sower provides similar utility that private neighborhoods currently provide, to give those that reside inside some piece of mind that they will be protected from what lies on the other side of the walls. While the imminent dangers just beyond the walls of Robledo that Lauren Olamina describes are a little starker when compared to today’s anywhere USA, the desperation of those living without the protection of four walls and a roof is just as palpable. Lauren’s description of the homes that existed beyond the walls as “trashed, burned, vandalized, infested with drunks or druggies or squatted in by homeless families” (10), is evocative of the tent cities scattered throughout present-day San Francisco. The following description Lauren provides could be used just as well for any neighborhood of San Francisco: “It’s illegal to camp out on the street the way they do—the way they must—so the cops knock them around, rob them if they have anything worth stealing, then order them away or jail them.”(51)

In Butler’s future, jobs that had once provided the middle class with a sense of security, such as pharmacist and nurse, “don’t earn much” (19), as Lauren describes. There are hints that there are those who live differently than those inside the walls of Robledo, those who would represent the rich, who live in “walled estates—one big house and a lot of shacky little dependencies where the servants lived” (9). Our generation is beginning to see similar circumstances. In an article released September 2^nd 2022, Joe Hernandez for NPR News wrote about a California school district who’s teachers couldn’t afford to live in the district they taught. The school district’s solution was to ask families in the district to rent out rooms for the teachers to live in.  In both the present and Butler’s future the government has failed to address the growing income disparity, and instead asks the rich to provide the bare minimum to those dependent upon them.

Water, clean water specifically, is shown to be a precious commodity. Lauren’s dad states “water now costs several times as much as gasoline” (18), to which Lauren aptly remarks to herself that it’s a lot harder to give up. Later in the novel, Lauren gives glimpse of the water crisis in Mississippi and Louisiana, sharing that cholera is spreading, which is commonly spread through contaminated water, and that the population is “without decent sanitation or clean water” (51). The Flint Water Crisis that began in 2014 is one such example of cities of our generation having to live without potable water. However even more recent is the situation in Jackson, Mississippi that began August 2022 and is still dealing with the effects of over 140,000 residents being without clean water. In these cases, and many others, it is usually lower income and under-represented populations that are affected the most.

What makes a lot of Butler’s Sower feel so personal is many similar events have already happened and will continue to. Americans have lived with the belief that these scenarios couldn’t happen here, and many may still be in denial because it hasn’t happened yet in their own backyard. It is telling though, that when Parable of the Sower was first released, it was marketed as science fiction, yet somewhere between 1993 and the 2019 edition, the genre on the back turned simply to fiction. The world Butler created doesn’t seem all that impossible anymore.

Throughout Bill McKibben’s excerpt from Falter, he refers to the “human game”, or as he goes on to define: “the sum total of culture and commerce and politics; of religion and sport and social life; of dance and music; of dinner and art and cancer and sex and Instagram; of love and loss; of everything that comprises the experience of our species.”(2) There’s also another important aspect of a game which McKibben seems to leave out, there are usually winners and losers.

McKibben suggests the human game is a collaborative effort, it goes well when there is more dignity for the players and badly when that dignity diminishes (4). Ideally, humanity is on the same side, everyone working together to play the game better, however, there is debate among players about how “better” is defined. This discrepancy has lead to different factions playing game and they are in direct competition with each other. As McKibben quotes Bush, “The American way of life in not up for negotiation”, he goes on to say, Bush was right and much of the world feels similarly from their own perspective (8). No one wants to lose out on what they think is rightfully theirs and if they were to stop now, others would get ahead.

Globalization, industrialization, oppression, and capitalism are some of the tools each faction has used and it’s important to point out that some factions have had a much longer time using these tools, often in very detrimental ways to the others. McKibben presents grim vignettes of some of these tools at work, such as the Alberta tar sands complex or “a vandalism of the natural and human world that can scarcely be imagined” (12), whose present state can be attributed to a number of different gas and oil corporations. It’s difficult to imagine these images are the result of a group of peoples attempts to create greater dignity amongst humanity, but under the guise of progress an atrocity can be easier to justify, which can be seen throughout the history of the human game.

Despite the bleak examples McKibben references, none individually present an imminent threat to our existence (13). However, they do collectively play a role in climate change, which McKibben rightfully believes is the greatest challenge for humanity to overcome, but that’s only possible if the game is played with humanity as a single team. It’s hard not to be cynical when there is a growing list of environmental catastrophes, yet little to no meaningful action to address them. As McKibben stated: “Though we’ve taken the environmental idea semi-seriously, passing the laws that cleaned air and water, we’ve never taken it anywhere near as seriously as we’ve taken further growth” (8). It would seem the goal of the game for many has nothing to do with dignity or humanity but has everything to do with uninhibited accumulation of resources. Despite there being different factions playing the game, seemingly against each other, we are for now, inescapably human, and therefore part of team humanity. In any game, when the goal cannot be agreed upon or how it should be accomplished, that team almost invariably loses and that means game over.