From the beginning to the end of this story, there has been a deep focus on the unknown danger and essence of nature in the Sundarbans, which is unmerciful and ever-changing. It seems to me that religion ties into this changing sense of nature, in that the people who live in the Sundarbans and have experienced its tragedies and dangers, either connect to it culturally or, I think, emphasize a stronger view of “mankind.” By this, I mean that critics have made claims in general that religion is “man-made,” and a construct created by humans in order to make sense of the world, by believing in deities and otherworldly entities. Not to offend anyone, but for the sake of this discussion, I am able to draw connections between this criticism and the text. Kanai states, on translation of Fokir’s words, “These animals were also in my mother’s stories: they were Bon Bibi’s messengers, she used to say, and they brought her news of the rivers and khals” (254). Fokir talks about religious “deities” or beliefs of Bon Bibi, Bhata, Khlas, and Jowar, which reflect concepts passed throughout generational storytelling and years lived in the Sundarbans. He also comments that Fokir’s grandpa had said that if you followed the “shush,” finding fish should be easy. I would infer that climate and religion have some sort of interconnection, in that people from the Sundarbans deeply associate their environment with their religious beliefs. I would even like to argue that people developed these religious concepts as a product of the extreme natural environment in which they have lived for centuries. It seems that culture, religion, and nature are tied up in a way that reflects how the people of the Sundarbans desire to make meaning or have a better understanding of their environment and how they can survive in it. In the text, it states, “…it was as if the storm had given them what life could not have; it fused them together and made them one” (321). Even as Fokir dies, the statement that Piya makes here almost seems biblical. In the Bible, there is an established idea that storms and floods reflect God’s power to transform and cleanse the world of sin. Almost as if in a religious sense, it could be inferred that Piya and Fokir’s souls have joined, in the way that he passes away to sacrifice his own life to the unchanging ways of nature. Even with the idea of religious concepts, it seems to be inevitable that nature is relentless and spares no one. Amidst the deaths of the people of the Sundarbans, nature is unforgiving and works in magical ways.

Throughout the story, it seems to me that Kanai’s interactions with Piya reflect on a microaggressive level that transcends race and is focused on class, language, and diaspora. Although they are both Bengali, Kanai appears to undermine Piya and, in a way, shame her for not living up to the expectations of what a Bengali woman should be like. Given his linguistic intellect and middle-class background, he has an overly explicit sense of “pride,” which I think is not only to flaunt his self-confidence, but inexplicitly belittle Piya. Almost as if he were an expert in certain aspects of Bengali culture and, more specifically, languages, he believes that he is superior to Piya. Kanai explicitly claims to Piya, “I know what it means…You don’t need to explain. It means you study marine mammals” (10). Every time the two engage in conversation, Kanai feels the need to mansplain and disregard Piya. As she is barely introducing herself, not only has he made assumptions prior, but he also has the nerve to cut her off from explaining what she does. Often, introductions are meant for each party to briefly share aspects of their individuality; however, in their introduction of each other, it seems that more about Kanai is being discussed, rather than Piya. He also easily makes assumptions about her physical appearance, and on top of that, deems her as another woman that he can have a casual “romantic involvement” with, similar to his previous one with another woman. He finds her confusing, not just because she does not follow the expectations of a Bengali woman, but that she does not fit his personal idea of a woman in general. He finds her incompetent in terms of language, because she is not fully “immersed” in Bengali culture, and thus, a foreigner to intellect. His thoughts about her are microaggressive because they reflect how he perceives her as a mere person to “obtain,” and judge, rather than acknowledge her genuinely in respect to her career and individuality. Later on in the story, as Piya works with Fokir, Kanai begins to mansplain once more, overexplaining the history of the Sundarbans. As Piya speaks about her expertise in dolphins, he undermines her intellect by interrupting what he considers to be her “tangents” to demonstrate his knowledge of the tide country, instead of respecting her for what she knows and is specialized in. His expertise with language is used by him to assert his power over her, although they are both from ethnically similar backgrounds.

Throughout chapters 1-8, but more so specifically 1-5, the scenes where Snowman, or Jimmy, reflects on the experiences of his younger self in the pre-apocalyptic society, he appears to place a huge emphasis on his relationship with Crake, or Glenn. I would like to bring up the interpretation that there appears to be some sort of homoerotic undertone between the two. In addition to this idea, I feel that Jimmy is also subconsciously denying it, and Crake might be indifferent to it (possibly suggesting a one-sided homoeroticism). In his flashbacks, the two share an emotional bond, even though Crake presents himself as distant and “cold.” To be clear, I do not think that there is an explicit homosexual relationship between them, but rather that there are brief, but intertwined, underlying tones of homoeroticity. As Atwood states, “He had his doubts about Crake’s honourableness, intellectual[ness]…He knew a bit more about Crake than his mother did” (70). From a broad surface-level view, it appears that Jimmy envies Crake because of the fact that his mother perceives Crake to be such an intellectual and well-spoken boy, contrary to what Jimmy knows about Crake’s interests. However, looking deeply, I sense that Jimmy finds pride in knowing Crake on a deeper level than his mother does. Almost as if in competition with his mother, whom he has a complex relationship with, he finds a strong interest in his relationship with Crake. Even as he is first introduced to Crake, Atwood states, “Nevertheless there was something about Crake. That kind of cool slouchiness always impressed Jimmy, coming from another guy: it was the sense of energies being held back…Jimmy found himself wishing to make a dent in Crake” (73). It appears to me that Jimmy is intrigued by Crake and his being. Aside from Crake’s distancing demeanor, Jimmy desires to be of value in Crake’s life. Almost as if Jimmy senses that Crake is reserving his true personality, he wants to be the one to crack that mask and see what Crake is truly like. To continue, in this particular scene, I felt that there was a subconscious denial of homosexual undertones. Atwood states, “Jimmy and Crake took to hanging out together…not every day, they weren’t gay or anything, but at least twice a week…” (76). I found it interesting that Jimmy had to directly claim that he and Crake were not romantically involved. If their relationship were strictly set to the bounds of a heterosexual friendship, which is what would be considered the “norm,” then why would he feel the need to explicitly say that there are no such relations to the reader? I would like to suggest that Jimmy might consider his relationship with Crake to be deeper than a regular friendship, not exactly in a set-in-stone homosexual relationship way, but in an emotional and personal way. To add to that, Atwood states, “These sessions would take place for the most part in silence…It would be Crake who’d decide what to watch and when to stop watching it…” (86). The two would have these exclusive “hangouts” with one another, partaking in the binging of extremely graphic media. To watch such media would normally be done in private, given the extreme nature of it and the taboos of sexual and gory content. However, they both mutually consent to watching and commenting on such graphic content, while not giving up any sort of vulnerability. They find safety, comfort, and a mutual understanding in each other’s company, allowing them to create a safe space to view such sensitive content. Lastly, Jimmy also seems to believe that he has a better understanding of Crake’s vulnerable side, more so than Crake himself. In his thoughts on Crake, he acknowledges Crake’s aloofness, but also seems to realize that there is still the other side of the coin. Atwood states, “How could I have missed it…What he was telling me…he’d grown up in walled spaces, and then he had become one. He had shut things out” (184). Jimmy seems to be reflecting on Crake’s very nature of being distant, getting disappointed with himself for not being able to fully understand Crake’s feelings in this specific moment. All in all, I think they have a complex relationship with each other, hinting at slight undertones of homosexuality, involving emotional connection.

Ghosh’s ideology refers to how, as a collective, our lack of acknowledgement towards spontaneous climate change is ultimately what leads to our climate issues of the modern day. A particular aspect of his ideology relates to how, in contemporary literature, climate changes are mainly mentioned in scientific accounts (i.e., nonfiction), rather than in novels or fiction. And even when climate is rarely mentioned in fiction, it is not taken seriously. I mainly agree with his thoughts on this particular subject, however, I do have some differences in opinion.

He discusses the linguistic context behind the word “recognition.” He states that there is a significant aspect of the word, lying behind its first syllable, “rec,” which refers to something prior, suggesting a pre-existing awareness that allows a shift from ignorance to knowledge (Ghosh 3). By exploring the definition of this term, he suggests that awareness of climate change relies on prior knowledge (i.e., knowing about natural disasters). He then brings up a specific example that his forebears likely awoke to the recognition of the natural presence that had come to take their lives, after taking the presence for granted over the time of their lives (Ghosh 3). Looking through the lenses of his ideology, I would assume that he believes that as a collective, humans can easily realize the various types of climate change and environmental disasters, but even with that prior knowledge, we lack the means to truly find the value in them. I think he feels that climate change is not taken seriously, given how he addresses the concept of recognition in relation to climate. What further supports this notion is how he claims that novels regarding the subject are referred to as science fiction (Ghosh 6). Even in contemporary writing, which would be expected to reflect modern-day issues and concerns, climate is overlooked upon. I definitely agree with Ghosh on this point, as it would even seem that when climate is mentioned in fiction, it seems to be otherworldly (even though it may reflect disasters that currently exist). For example, in the “Wizard of Oz,” the depiction of climate in the magical world would easily be overlooked. In a land of fantasy, the weather may just seem like an unnatural factor, but many of the weather events (i.e., the tornado) reflected real-world disasters in Kansas during the time period of the movie’s production. He even brings up the larger consequence of ignoring the realities of climate, as he pessimistically suggests that when future readers look upon the literature of our time, there will only be accounts of climate that are concealed (Ghosh 11). Though I do believe this is a negative way to look upon literature, I can understand that he may have this belief because climate is misrepresented in novels, which will cause future generations to not be able to have accurate accounts of environmental issues.

I do appreciate the way in which Ghosh reflects on the problem of misrepresenting climate, but I also feel that he contradicts himself as well. For example, he brings up how weather is not easily accommodated in contemporary literature because of its improbability, but then continues to add how in John Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” there is a depiction of extreme weather that reflects the environmental times of Milton’s society (Ghosh 26). In terms of my personal understanding, Ghosh seems to suggest that because of the collective belief that climate is improbable, it renders it difficult to write about. But, if Milton could write such meaningful poems while having regard for extreme climate, which may be considered improbable, why can we not in our contemporary society? And, by stating that he believes in the improbability of weather in our time, does that not make him part of the collective that he is discussing negatively?