I keep talking about those Sinai-like cracks, and I certainly felt/saw them widen within and beneath me this past Tuesday night as we parted with still so very much to talk about relative to The Satanic Verses. We got things off to a productive start, certainly, especially with the Mahound section (strand B according to the Kundera structural/rondo logic, which, by the way, can indeed be found in Testaments Betrayed: Essay in Nine Parts). Clearly we'll have to pay some foundational attention to strands A (contemporary London and Bombay) and C (the Ayesha pilgrimage) next week and I'm hoping we can work directly from a rich cross-section of specific textual moments next week. To that end, shall I/can I call upon you to find a passage in the novel that speaks to you in some way and to share with us a modest observational, critical close-reading of your chosen passage here on the blog? (At some point, too, we should probably find occasion to point out and discuss the verbal/linguistic felicities of Rushdie's prose as evidenced in this text).
I personally simply love the way Rushdie uses the metaphor of floating debris in the opening scene, and the way that debris is composed of both material and immaterial things (e.g., "remnants of the plane" and "debris of the soul"; "drinks trolleys" and notions like land, belonging, and home). In a course that's so much about things being "up in the air" (identity possibilities, power dynamics, historical truth, personal histories, narratorial reliability, etc.), this scene is devastatingly appropriate. I recall, too, that great section in the first chapter of Pico Iyer's The Global Soul (which we're scheduled to read for Week 14 but which we won't have much time to discuss) in which Iyer describes that "High above the clouds, in an alternative plane of existence--a duty-free zone, in a way, in which everyone around him was a stranger--the Global Soul would be facing not just new answers to the old questions but a whole new set of questions, as he lived through shifts that the traditional passenger on ocean liner or long-distance train could never have imagined. " New questions that need answers. It's no surprise when, a few pages after the crash of the airliner, Rushdie's narrator poses the central question of the book: "How does newness come into the world? How is it born? Of what fusions, translations, conjoinings is it made? How does it survive, extreme and dangerous as it is?" (8).
The Iyer connections in The Satanic Verses continue in a passage like that one on page 41, when Chamcha considers the distance between Bombay and London, between Indianness and Londonness. In one sense it's "five and a half thousand as the crow," but in another sense it's "not very far at all." This novel will be about movements between these two cities, and everything that movement implies for identity. It sounds very Joycean, too, to think of identities being unmoored and recombined in cities, to think that one of the prime effects of cities is to bring stories and narratives together.
I also always relish the visual nature of that scene that ends Chapter 3 of Ellowen Deeowen: "The monsters ran quickly, silently, to the edge of the Detention Centre compound, where the manticore and other sharp-toothed mutants were waiting by the large holes they had bitten into the fabric of the containing fence, and then they were out, free, going their separate ways, without hope, but also without shame. Saladin Chamcha and Hyacinth Phillips ran side by side, his goat-hoofs clip-clopping on the hard pavements: east she told him, as he heard his own footsteps replace the tinnitus in his ears, east east east they ran, taking the low roads to London town" (176-7). That's just wonderful writing, and it so sharply makes London a radically unstable notion (linguistically via the "Ellowen Deeowen" signifier, spatially, symbolically, etc.).
I often teach Heart of Darkness in my British Lit survey class, and isn't this a kind of reverse Heart of Darkness paradigm, with the colonized Other (monstrous in the eyes of the "motherland") marching east to recolonize/reverse colonize the city. It's a companion image to the "two brown bodies" that fall from the sky in the novel's opening moments, both dramatic literalizations of the postcolonial moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
An interesting passage comes on page 390 when Mahound’s scribe, aptly called Salman, reveals that he has been testing Mahound by altering the dictation slightly, to see if the prophet can spot the mistakes.
Here’s the point: Mahound did not notice the alterations. So there I was, actually writing the Book, or rewriting, anyway, polluting the word of God with my own profane language. But, good heavens, if my poor words could not be distinguished from the Reveltion by God’s own Messenger, then what did that mean?
This passage recalls Bakhtin’s emphasis on the dialogic power of words and calls into question the authority any one text can claim. Rushdie plays with doubleness throughout his novels: his protagonists have a double- shiva, sinai; gibreel and saladin- and also each character displays a tendency towards dualism or multiplicity of selves. I want to elaborate on this because it is something that comes up repeatedly and seems to go hand in hand with ideas of hybridity and multiculturalism. . .
Yes, Elizabeth, this is a really important moment, I think, and I think you're right to say it "calls into question the authority any one text can claim." Sacred texts (and the validity of divine inspiration) are certainly implicated here, but I think you are astute in noting that it can be "any" text. Even the most honest of scribes can introduce error into a text, and certainly this causes us to contemplate the idea/process of translation with much more skepticism and complexity. I'm not entirely sure the following quote is the right one for the occasion, but I just found this from Bhabha's essay "How Newness Enters the World: Postmodern Space, Postcolonial TImes and the Trials of Cultural Translation": "It could be argued, I think, that far from simply misinterpreting the Koran, Rushdie's sin lies in opening a space of discursive contestation that places the authority of the Koran within a perspective of historical and cultural relativism. It is not that the 'content' of the Koran is directly disputed; rather, by revealing other enunciatory positions and possibilities within the framework of Koranic reading, Rushdie performs the subversion of its authenticity through the act of cultural translation -- he relocates the Koran's 'intentionality' by repeating and reinscribing it in the locale of the novel of postwar cultural migrations and diasporas." I don't know -- that phrase "opening a space of discursive contestation" seems germane here, especially given your reference to Bakhtin and dialogism.
I agree. I found a great article by Keith Booker who is also picking up on that space Rushdie's attempting to open up. He points out how Islam often figures into rushdie's work as a symbol of monological thought. But more than just an attack on Islam, Rushdie seems to be working against dogmatism in general and the oppression that comes from such practices. In this way Booker aligns Rushdie with Nietzsche, who opposed the dogmatism of Christianity more than any specific tenets of the religion itself. but I think Rushdie is attempting to make space in the discourse and while acknowledging the religious need for some, is also offering "alternative myths for the modern age" and the myths are alternative for their embracing of difference rather than reliance on binary opposites.
Post a Comment