An Astrologer’s Day by R. K. Naraya

An Astrologer’s Day by R. K. Naraya  My Experience Before and After Watching the Movie

 This blog was given by Megha Ma’am. It is about the short story “An Astrologer’s Day” by R. K. Narayan. In this blog, I have discussed the story and my experience before and after watching the movie.

Introduction :-

             Sometimes, stories are more than just words on paper. They create a world in our minds. When we read, we build scenes, faces, sounds, and emotions with our imagination. And then, when we watch the same story as a movie, it either matches what we imagined or surprises us in new ways. This happened to me with An Astrologer’s Day by R. K. Narayan.

         In this blog, I want to share my personal journey how I imagined the story while reading it, and what changed for me after watching its movie adaptation. 

 About R. K. Narayan

  R.K. Narayan (Rasipuram Krishnaswami Iyer Narayanaswami) was born in 1906 in Madras . He is one of the greatest Indian writers in English. His stories are not about kings or heroes. They are about common people schoolboys, shopkeepers, teachers, clerks, and in this case, an astrologer. He writes about their small struggles, their dreams, their mistakes, and their moments of joy. And yet, these small stories touch something big in our hearts.

          Narayan’s language is easy to read, but his stories are full of deep meaning. He received many awards during his life, including the Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan. His work is loved not only in India but across the world.

About An Astrologer’s Day

        An Astrologer’s Day is one of Narayan’s most popular short stories. The beauty of the story lies in its simplicity and surprise ending. The story shows us just one evening in the life of an astrologer who sits in a market and tells people’s fortunes.

      The astrologer is dressed in a saffron turban. He has sacred ash on his forehead. He looks wise and holy. People believe in him and pay him to hear about their future. But what they don’t know is that this man is not truly gifted with any powers. He simply uses his cleverness, quick thinking, and understanding of human nature to guess what people want to hear.

      On this particular evening, something unexpected happens. A stranger comes to him and challenges him to tell his fortune. The astrologer, thinking it’s just another customer, begins his usual tricks. But as they talk, the truth is revealed  the astrologer has a dark past. Years ago, he had stabbed a man in a fight and fled, thinking he had killed him. That stranger in front of him now is that very man.

        What follows is a tense and clever conversation where the astrologer manages to save himself once again. The story ends with a twist that leaves the reader amazed at how fate works in strange ways.

How I Imagined the Story Before Watching the Movie

       When I first read An Astrologer’s Day, the words created vivid images in my mind. Narayan’s descriptions are simple, but they are so powerful that I could easily picture the entire scene. Let me share what I saw in my imagination.

The Market :-

         I imagined a busy, colourful market at night. There were rows of small shops and stalls, each lit with oil lamps. The lamps flickered in the evening breeze, casting dancing shadows on the faces of the sellers and buyers. The street was narrow, filled with people moving around, bargaining, buying, and chatting. I imagined the smell of groundnuts being roasted, the sweet scent of incense, and the dust of the street rising with every step.

The Astrologer

              Under a large tamarind tree sat the astrologer. I saw him wearing a saffron turban, his forehead marked with white ash. His beard was neatly trimmed. His eyes were sharp, always looking around for customers. His hands moved confidently as he spread out his charts, shells, and papers. He looked peaceful on the outside, but inside, he was alert, always ready with clever words.

        I imagined him lighting a small lamp near his feet, creating a small circle of light that made him look more mysterious. His voice was smooth and calm, the kind of voice that makes people trust him.

The Stranger :-

           When the stranger appeared, I imagined him as a tall man with a rough, sunburned face. His eyes were dark and deep, filled with pain and anger. His clothes were simple and dusty. His voice was loud and harsh when he challenged the astrologer. I could feel the tension between them as they spoke.

What Happened When I watched  the Movie

After reading the story and building this world in my mind, I watched the short film adaptation . Watching the movie felt like stepping into someone else’s imagination of the same story.

The Market

       The market on screen was very close to what I had imagined. It was crowded and noisy. The oil lamps gave it that warm, flickering glow. The shops, the sellers, the people moving around  it all felt real. The sounds I had imagined in my head were now alive . The film captured the lively and chaotic atmosphere of the marketplace beautifully. The small details, like the smoke rising from food stalls or the movement of people, added to the realism.

The Astrologer

         The actor who played the astrologer looked just like I had pictured. His turban, his ash-marked forehead, his beard it was all there. But the film added something more. His facial expressions, the way his eyes shifted, the way he held his breath for a moment when the stranger questioned him  these small things showed his inner fear and quick thinking in a way that words can only suggest.

        His voice, too, added a new layer. It was calm, but with a hint of worry when the stranger pressed him for answers.

The Stranger

       The stranger in the movie matched my mental image quite well. He looked rough and tired. His eyes carried the weight of his past. His voice was challenging and angry. On screen, his presence felt even more dangerous, because I could see the way he leaned forward, the way he stared at the astrologer, the way his hands moved as he spoke.

        The film built up the tension slowly. The conversation between the astrologer and the stranger felt more intense because I could see their faces up close. The background music added to the suspense. When the twist came, the relief on the astrologer’s face was clear. The way the camera focused on his expression made the ending more powerful.

Comparing My Imagination and the Movie

          It was interesting to see how close or different the film was from what I had imagined. Here’s how I felt:

Aspect My Imagination Movie

     Market Crowded, noisy, full of smells and lights Matched well  sounds, lights, and crowd shown beautifully

     Astrologer Mysterious, clever, sharp-eyed Looked the same, but expressions and voice added more emotion

   Stranger Rough, angry, dangerous Matched my image; felt even more tense on screen

        Twist Surprised me; made me think Felt stronger; relief and irony shown clearly

          Reading the story gave me the freedom to imagine everything my own way. Watching the movie filled in the details I might have missed. Both experiences were valuable and enjoyable.

What the Story and Movie Made Me Think About

     Both the short story and the movie left me thinking about some deep ideas:

Fate and Destiny

         The astrologer and the stranger meet again, not by choice, but because of fate. Life brings them together at the right (or wrong) moment. This shows how we can never fully escape our past.

Cleverness as Survival

         The astrologer survives not because of luck alone, but because he uses his mind. His quick thinking and understanding of people save him both in the past and present.

Appearance vs. Reality

        The astrologer appears wise and holy, but inside, he is just a man hiding from his mistakes. This reminds us not to judge people by how they look.

Irony of Life

         The man who tells others about their future does not know his own. He believes he killed a man, but that man stands before him. Life’s irony protects him in the end.

What We Learn from An Astrologer’s Day

          The story An Astrologer’s Day teaches us that we cannot escape from our past it will catch up with us one day. It also shows that life is full of surprises, and we should be ready for anything. The astrologer saves himself not with magic, but with cleverness and quick thinking. The story reminds us not to judge people by how they look because people may be hiding secrets. Lastly, it shows that destiny is powerful, and sometimes things happen that are beyond our control.

Thank you for reading...

Reference :- 

“An Astrologer’s Day – Hindi Short Film.” YouTube, uploaded by Pocket Films, June 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkfrjYFQozA. Accessed 28 June 2025.

Narayan, R. K. Malgudi Days. Indian Thought Publications, 1943.

Flipped Learning Activity: Derrida and Deconstruction.

This blog is given by Dr. Dilip Sir Barad as part of flipped learning activities on Derrida and Deconstruction. For further information Click here.

Video :1 

   Deconstruction is hard to define because meaning in language is never fixed. Derrida questions whether we can ever fully define anything, as meanings always shift depending on context.

    It is not a negative or destructive activity. Derrida says deconstruction is not about breaking things just to destroy them. Instead, it's about closely examining ideas and finding hidden meanings or contradictions.

     Deconstruction often happens on its own because language naturally has gaps, limits, and contradictions. Even when a writer tries to be clear, the text may reveal other meanings.

    Derrida asks deep questions about how we define things. He refuses to define deconstruction in a strict way, just like other terms in philosophy and literary theory.

     He is influenced by Heidegger, who also questioned the foundations of Western philosophy. Derrida believes the whole structure of Western thought should be re-examined and transformed.

     In his 1983 letter to a Japanese friend (Professor Izutsu), Derrida explains how meaning and language change across cultures and translations.

   He also challenges binary oppositions (like good/evil, speech/writing) and shows how these opposites are not always stable or fair.

    Derrida’s key idea is “différance”, which means that meaning is based on both difference (how words differ from others) and deferral (how meaning is always delayed). So, meaning is never complete or final.

Questions :-

Why is it difficult to define Deconstruction?

Answer : - 

        Because deconstruction does not believe in one fixed meaning. It says that meaning keeps changing. That’s why we cannot give one simple or final definition.

Is Deconstruction a negative term?

Answer :-

       No, it is not negative. Some people think it breaks things, but it actually helps us understand things in a better and deeper way.

How does Deconstruction happen on its own?

Answer :- 

         Deconstruction happens by itself because language is full of different and hidden meanings. When we read closely, we find those meanings without trying too 

hard.

Video : 2

   The seeds of Deconstruction come from Martin Heidegger, especially from his book Being and Time (Sein und Zeit, 1927).

Important thinkers who influenced Derrida include:

1. Martin Heidegger (1889–1976)

2. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)

3. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

Key Themes and Ideas:

   Heidegger believed that the question of “being” was repressed and ignored in Western philosophy. He wanted to bring it back to focus.

    Derrida continues this idea by saying that Western thought is built on hidden assumptions, especially the belief in fixed meaning.

       In postmodern thinking, man is decentered meaning does not come from a single source or truth but from multiple, shifting structures. This idea is seen in Heidegger and Nietzsche.

   Logocentrism and phonocentrism (preference for speech over writing) are signs of how Western philosophy gives more value to presence over absence. Derrida critiques this as part of the metaphysics of presence.

Heidegger and Derrida’s Shared Goal:

   Heidegger used the term “destruction” to describe his process of breaking down traditional philosophy. This concept was later translated as “deconstruction” by Derrida.

     Heidegger aimed to dismantle the whole tradition of Western philosophy by rethinking the question of Being.

     Derrida follows this path, using language, meaning, and structure to continue questioning the foundations of Western thought.

Questions  : 

The influence of Heidegger on Derrida

Answer :- 

        Heidegger said we must rethink what it means to ' be.'Derrida learned from him and said we must also question how language creates meaning.

Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy.

Answer : - 

         Derrida challenged fixed ideas like truth vs. false, speech vs. writing. He said meanings are not stable and always change. So, he broke the old rules of philosophy and brought new ways to think.

Video : 3

    Derrida’s Deconstruction is influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea that meaning in language is arbitrary and relational  any word (sign) gains meaning only in relation to other words, not by itself.

 Derrida challenges the “metaphysics of presence”  the belief that meaning or truth is found in what is present and stable. He says we should not always trust what is said to be true or original.

    Phonocentrism and logocentrism are part of this metaphysical thinking. They give more value to spoken words over written words, assuming that speech is more “true.”

  Derrida says Western philosophy is based on binary oppositions like:

Good vs Evil

Man vs Woman

Presence vs Absence

    These opposites are not equal  one side is usually treated as superior, and the other as inferior (e.g., evil is just a lack of good, or woman is seen in relation to man).

    Derrida introduces the term “différance”, which combines to differ and to defer. It shows that meaning is always unstable  it changes depending on what it is compared to, and is always delayed.

       He points out that meaning is not fixed but created through difference and absence (e.g., the meaning of “cold” comes from the absence of “hot”).

     The idea of phallogocentrism combines phallocentrism (male-centered thinking) and logocentrism. Derrida criticizes this because it privileges male-centered authority in language and philosophy.

Questions: 

Ferdinand de Saussureian concept of language (that meaning is arbitrary, relational, constitutive)

Answer : 

Meaning is arbitrary: There is no natural connection between a word (like “tree”) and the thing it refers to.

Meaning is relational: Words get meaning by being different from other words.

Meaning is constitutive: Language does not just reflect meaning it creates meaning.

How Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness?

Answer :- 

Derrida agrees meaning is arbitrary, but he adds that: Meaning is never fixed.It always depends on context and other words.So, meaning is always shifting and unstable.

Concept of metaphysics of presence

Answer :- 

           Western thinking believes that truth or meaning is present.Derrida says this is wrong.We always depend on language, and language is never pure or present.

Video : 4

    Critique of Speech over Writing: Derrida challenges the traditional Western philosophical tendency to privilege speech over writing, arguing that speech is often considered to have a more immediate "presence" of meaning.

 DifferAnce as a Core Concept:

       It's not a concept or idea, but a "force" that makes differentiation possible.

   It combines two French words:

 "différer" (to differ/distinguish) and "déferer" (to defer/postpone).

      It means both "to differ" (spatial distinction) and "to defer" (temporal postponement).The term itself cannot be pronounced differently, only spelled differently, highlighting its written nature.

      Throughout Western philosophy, there's a tendency to assume a "final meaning" or "transcendental signified" can be grasped.

    Derrida argues that meaning is always postponed and that a final meaning is a "myth."

       One word leads to another, and the meaning is constantly deferred; it never comes out of a dictionary fully.

  Metaphysics of Presence:

   "Differance" is a "symptom of the metaphysics of presence."The concept of "difference" itself is not a negative term but contrasts with the binary opposition of negative and positive.Western philosophy tends toward "phonocentrism," which prioritizes speech and its perceived presence.

 Saussure and the Sign:

    Saussure stated there are no positive items in language. A Saussurean sign is equal to a signifier, which signifies something.

     Derrida's "Differance" leads to the "free play of signifiers," meaning nothing is definitively signified.

      Speaking is seen as a "practice of presence" in Western philosophy, while writing is considered a "practice of absence."

    In deconstruction, writing is considered "primary" and speaking "secondary."

 Derrida's Purpose:

          He draws attention to the fact that we often take for granted that we understand things. He questions the "privilege of speech over writing."

Questions: 

Derridean concept of DifferAnce

Answer :-

       DiffeAnce is a word made by Derrida. It means:

To differ: Words get meaning by being different from other words.

To defer: Meaning is always delayed. We never get full meaning right away.

Infinite play of meaning

Answer :-

    Because meaning keeps changing and shifting, it is never final. Words always connect to other words, so meaning goes on like a chain.

 DIfferAnce = to differ + to defer

Answer :-

Derrida combined these two ideas:

Differ - meanings come from differences between words

Defer - meaning is always postponed So, meaning is never complete, only a part of an endless process.

Video : 5 

Structure, Sign & Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.

      'Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.''language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique' (This appears to be a repetition).

      A paper read at the colloquium on "Structuralism" at Johns Hopkins university - "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" (1966)

    Structure, Sign and Play is one of the very important documents contemporary literary theory.

  Therefore is known as post-structuralism. 1967 Post-Structuralism is not outright rejection of criticism of structuralism but going beyond by critiquing Structuralism.

  Ex -:  Buddhism it set out as a critic of Vedanta and it actually ends up sounding more like Vedanta.

       language demands critic. so any philosophical statement will always contain a blind spot which ask for criticism.

     Deconstructive writing is most of the time auto-critical.Similar cases that have happened in the past (eg. Friedrich Nietzsche C1844-1900).

   Heidegger said Nietzsche is the last metaphysician.Criticism has been levied against tradition using the same assumption that tradition is always out side of tradition.

      Derrida pushes the destabilized motion of the centre in the point of a "rupture" in the history of thought on Structurality.

      When using the same language and the same assumptions that we find assumptions Structuralism appeals to they project what is science & metaphysics.

     The essay "A Critique of The Levi-Strauss & Edmund anthropologist made Structuralism. Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009) - French Anthropologist.

 Structuralism Anthropology (1958)Structuralism began as a critic of the assumption of Science as well as metaphysics. The centre is paradoxically within the structure and outside it elsewhere. The centre is not the centre.

         Structuralism is using the same assumption that we find in metaphysics and Science.Structuralism is a criticism of Science and metaphysics on other side using the same assumption.

Questions :-

Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences

Answer :-

        Every system like religion or science has a structure with a center that gives it meaning. But this center is not natural or permanent.Meanings are always changing and moving.

Explain: "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."

Answer :-

    This means that Sometimes, words are unclear, have more than one meaning, or even contradict each other.Because of this, language makes us question itself.

Video : 6 

  The Yale School - the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories.

The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction.

 During 1970s - the Yale School has been the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories.

Few people are associated with this Post-essay

 1) Paul de Man (1919-1983)

 2) J Hillis Miller (1918-)

 3) Harold Bloom (1930)

 4) Geoffrey Hartman (1929)

 Main four people make deconstruction popular.Yale School is responsible for bringing deconstruction in the literary criticism.

Some most important characteristics

 1) Firstly, looking at literature as rhetorical or figurative construct.They showed that literature can create multiplicity of meaning by focusing on various figures of speech.

2) Secondly, the question both the aesthetic as well as formalist approach to literature and also question the historical or Sociologist approach to literature.

    Paul de man's work, materiality of Signifier. When we say red red rose that we feel and red rose, the materiality of it is similar to actual red rose.

     Paul de Man argues that aesthetic is the very illusory effect of language and so is social and historical. One so both real.

      In "Blindness and Insight": Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism (1971) Paul de Man sought to deconstruct the primacy of symbol over allegory and metaphor in romantic thought. Paul de Man shows that it is metaphor but it's allegory that is very important in Romanticism.

Questions : 

The Yale School: the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories

Answer :- 

     The Yale School was a group of famous literary critics in Yale University who used Derrida’s theory of Deconstruction to study literature.

Main members:

Paul de Man

J. Hillis Miller

Harold Bloom

Geoffrey Hartman

 They helped spread Deconstruction in American literary studies, especially during the 1970s and 1980s.

The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction

Answer :-

1) The looking at literature rhetorical or figurative construct.

2) The question both the aesthetic as well as formalist approach to literature and also question the historicist or sociologist approach to literature 

3) important characteristics of yale school is their preoccupation with Romanticism.

Video :7 

     Here other critical schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism, Postcolonial Theories used Deconstruction.

  Yale School was primarily preoccupied with rhetorical and figurative analysis of literary text and in deconstructing that.

      Postcolonial theories fascinated by its ability to show that the texts or discourse of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within the narratives.

     Feminist theories - in interested because it deals with how to subvert the binary between male and female to subvert patriarchal discourse.

       Cultural materialist - interested in it to emphasize the materiality of language - language is material construct and it has got ability to unmask the hidden ideological agendas. The text is historical and history is textual .

Questions :-

How other schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theorists used Deconstruction?

Answer :- 

New Historicism : Uses Deconstruction to show that history is not fixed and can have many meanings.

Cultural Materialism: Uses Deconstruction to find hidden power and unfair control in culture.

Feminism : It deals with how to subvert the binary between male and Female to subvert patriachal discourse. 

Marxism : Uses Deconstruction to show how language supports rich people and hides class struggle.

Postcolonial theories: Fascinated by its ability to show that the texts or discource of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within the narratives .

Thank you for reading..

Reference :- 

Barad, Dilip. “Deconstruction and Derrida.” Dilip Barad: Teacher Blog, 21 Mar. 2015, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2015/03/deconstruction-and-derrida.html.Accessed 26 June 2025.

Barad, Dilip. “Flipped Learning Network.” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 11 Jan. 2016, blog.dilipbarad.com/2016/01/flipped-learning-network.html.  Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE-MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.1 Derrida and Deconstruction - Definition (Final).Avi.” YouTube, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-3BPNk9gs. Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.2.1 Derrida & Deconstruction – Heidegger (Final).” YouTube, uploaded by DoE MKBU, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=buduIQX1ZIw.Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE-MKBU. 5.2.2 Derrida & Deconstruction – Ferdinand de Saussure (Final). YouTube, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7M9rDyjDbA.Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.3 Derrida and Deconstruction – DifferAnce (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJPlxjjnpQk. Accessed 26 June 2025.

  DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.4 Derrida & Deconstruction – Structure, Sign & Play (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOV2aDwhUas. Accessed 26 June 2025.

 DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.5 Derrida & Deconstruction – Yale School (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_M8o7B973E.Accessed 26 June 2025.

 DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.6 Derrida & Deconstruction: Influence on Other Critical Theories (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAU-17I8lGY.Accessed 26 June 2025.