As much as I admire our collective hatred for Kanai, I can’t help but think that if he were to die rather than Fokir, he would be made into a martyr. Not solely for the fact he attempts to ‘change,’ but that he is a rich man in the land of the poor. Piya’s death would’ve been similarly messy because, while she’s not a gross man, she’s still privileged. I would argue that we’re meant to have that rage over Fokir’s death. We are meant to wish he lived, and we are meant to resent his death as having been for the (character) development of others. We are meant to question if the death is fated (or, for that matter, intended by the author) to serve the rich, or if it is random. It is meant to encapsulate the ways in which the death of the poor on these islands is simultaneously random and a product of the development of the rich society.
Circling back to my point about Kanai and/or Piya dying rather than Fokir: had they died, we would have all been duped into reading a book that leaves the death of the poor as a background to the death of the rich. Admittedly, we were still reading a book that centers the privileged (which is icky), but I just think that their deaths would have sent the wrong message.
One thought on “I’m not tryna say Fokir deserved to die but..”
I totally agree with this as upsetting as it may be. I think is some way that Fokir was written to be that character that we are all sad about dying.