Erica - America

I find the relation between Changez and Erica to be a lot like Changez’s relationship to America. He was only able to make love with Erica if he pretended to be someone he was not, and as for America is he acted like a typical American he found what he considered as home. It was once he started losing Erica, because she wanted that someone he pretended to be for her, that he started to act more like his self and then he began to feel rejected by America because of who he is. Erica symbolizes the America that he cannot have unless he pretends to be who he is not.

I was thinking about how Shame speaks to the imperatives of history writing, and how we, as in our class, really came to two different conclusions about Rushdie's writing of history. On the one hand, I feel like he's made a general statement about history--that it only exists within the artifact and that any attempt to write it is necessarily falsely constructed. On the other hand, he's also made a more specific statement about Pakistani history--that it needs to be told in whispered rumors in this subversion, behind-the-scenes kind of way. These two "hands" are not mutually exclusive and actually feed into each other quite well. If any attempt at writing history is falsely constructed (thus destroying any possibility of a true history), then anybody who chooses to write history must write with a specific interpretation in mind (truth having been taken out of the picture).

So I think the "american" to which the narrative of The Reluctant Fundamentalist is addressed poses some interesting questions. For one, if we, as an audience, are to assume that we are this man, what can we assume about Mohsin's intended audience for this novel? The first question that comes into mind for me is Mohsin's nationality. I could buy that he'd be writing for an American audience if he were American, but he's not. He's British. Clearly, he's not writing for a solely British audience. I think that generally, he's writing to 1st world, white countries. But then, why America? Why an American? My initial thought is that perhaps he considers America to be the best representation of the privileged, white world, but then why not make it more general? Why choose to focus so closely on 9/11?

I think this might point to a broader, more global reality that shifted when the twin towers fell that I (maybe) can't appreciate because the event is too close to home.

Sufiya Zinobia

Sufiya Zinobia is where all the family’s shame is projected onto, and in a way that is what held the family together. While she is there within the family’s presence, those around her did not show shame for what they did, and how they acted. But once she left the home and became free of her family and the shame that they put upon her, they all begin to fall apart, lose their sanity, hallucinate, hear people that are dead, commit suicide, and so on. It is as if Sufiya Zinobia’s shame is what held the family together, because once she escaped (as the beast) the family began to crumble and die.

In response to Ajai's response to my response (Diana's), oh wow...I just got a little lost.

In any case, I wish that I could find another reason for Reza's second introduction because the form of the novel seems more interesting? more complex? more intellectual rather than emotional? Is there such a disconnect between the two? I have this feeling that I'd like there to be a more rousing reason for the second introduction than the emotional urgency that I see in it now (any takers?), but I got thinking today in class talking (again) about Reza and Rushdie in conjuction and the way their narrative interjections both seem to have a sense of urgency (what kind, I have difficulty pinpointing), but I wonder (I promise I'll end this sentence) if it has anything to do with the way that they're writing history in this fictional way, or if it has to do with the fact that they are writing, essentially, their own history and what that means for how they think history should be written, the responsibilities that writers have to history and fiction or history rather than fiction or fiction rather than history.

Sorry for posting this rambling list of questions.

Comparisons

I find it interesting that the two daughters born into one family are so opposite. One daughter represents shame while the other daughter represents the lack of shame. I was wondering about Omar’s family, and how he represents the lack of shame, and would that make his brother become the representative shame? Another interesting fact is that Omar was named after a poet, and was not poetic, but his brother, who was not named after a poet, is the one who made attempts at being poetic. Rushdie appears to purposefully make these drastically opposing comparisons between relatives, and I wonder what is his ultimate reason for these comparisons?

Sharam

In response to Diane (I think) about the interjections in Reza and Rushdie, I agree that in Rushdie the interjections serve to enhance my engagement with the book, because the authorial voice adds to rather than diminishing the effect. The voice and the story are inseparable, to the point that any attempt to imagine the same story without the authorial presence will be incoherent.

In Reza though, I'm not sure it works the same way. I'm not saying it doesn't, by the way, I actually don't think I can comment in fairness because I did not read the entire novel up to that point. But from what I did read the author's voice wasn't intertwined with the story the way it is in Shame. If it had that effect for you, though, perhaps that's the "point," for lack of a better way to put it.

Omar the Poet

In the beginning of Rushdie's Shame it is mentioned that none of the three women, his three mothers is ever formally educated in any way. I wonder then how Omar became a poet and how the three women could appreciate his writing. Perhaps this is something that gets fleshed out further in the novel, as I haven't gotten too too far into it, it was just something I noticed. The book even claims that Omar was subjected to the same kind of seclusion his mothers were, so it even further peaks my interest on the topic.

Bertha Narratives

Yeah, I know we're way past The Crooked Line, but I'm still really struck by the similarities between Shaman and Bertha Rochester (of Jane Eyre notoriety). From her seemingly insane antics as a child, to her antagonism with her husband, Shaman is encompassed by the "Bertha narrative" much more thoroughly than Jane's, to which she professes a connection. Yet she's still tinged with shades of Jane; an unwanted child, foisted onto schools and boarding houses. The girls with which she forms attachments are different evocations of Helen for Shaman, and they go in and out of her life just as quickly. I'm of the opinion that Shaman's story is the merging of both the Bertha and Jane narratives, this strange amalgamation of submission and frustrated rage. Shaman is largely ineffectual and crippled because of these conflicting psyches within herself. I have a theory that at their foundations, the Bertha and Jane narratives are one in the same, yet have twisted away from each other as they've grown.

Jumping back quickly to a Village Divided and the second introduction, or even the matter of the first introduction...I do agree to an extent with Ajai's disapproval. Would the book have been just as effective without the second introduction. I do think so, but would it have been quite so personal? I don't know. I had a strange reaction after reading the introduction, and surely the text following lended itself to this effect, but I felt each character so much more deeply and personally. Suddenly, I realized that I cared about these people who I had been given so much reason to despise because the author had given me his reason to care. There was something about this very open and very unnecessary (structurally but perhaps necessary personally) second introduction that made the writing and reading of this book feel so deeply important.

Reading Shame now, I feel the same way about Rushdie's interjections.

1 April

In present day the first of April is also known as April Fool’s Day, and in Monto’s short story “The New Constitution,” the main character Mangu made a fool out of himself. He overheard parts of conversations which lead him to truly believe that there was going to be a new constitution, and that it was going to be in favor of India and its freedom. Mangu beat up "the gora" thinking that he was the foolish one, but in reality he, Mangu, was the fool because there was not a "new constitution" that he was so excited about. April Fool’s Day has existed since the late 1500s. So is it a coincidence that Manto makes Mangu a fool on April Fool’s Day?

"What is a country?"

I have constantly heard professors say that if you have a question you should ask it because most likely there are others in the class with the same question, and it makes me wonder how many other people had the same question Sitara did. Sitara asked her sister, Sarwari, “What is a country,” in complete sincerity because she did not know what made a country a country. And Sarwari realized that she did not know the answer either, and she only knew some of the things that would come out of the new country, “the advantages which Muslims would get.” So if Sitara did not know, Sarwari did not know, and Abbas also did not answer Sitara’s question, how many other people were fighting for a country and did not know what a country is?

In A Village Divided by Rahi Masoom Reza the people of the village represent a smaller and somewhat parallel version of what is happening between the countries of India and Pakistan. The people of the north end, Uttar Patti, were constantly competing and fighting with the people of the south end, Dakkhin Patti to prove that they were better than the other side. The village’s life is very similar to the people of India and Pakistan who were fighting each other because of their religious differences. The people of the village were competing to prove that their end is better than the other’s end, but the fight between the countries was about the differences between their religions rather than who is better than whom because of what they have.

In the story "Sunlight on a Broken Column" the main character Laila lived in an extremely controlled environment. She even shows a bit of sympathy towards the house workers and the few slaves they have, because she feels that her life is being controlled just like theirs is being controlled. She does not get to make hew own personal life choices. Her aunts and uncles who she lives with make Laila’s life decisions for her. Laila’s Uncle Mohsin is ready to marry her off so he will no longer have to worry about her, but her Aunt Abida disagrees and claims that Laila is not old enough and wise enough to chose her own husband. This is all being discussed right in front of her, but yet she still gets no say as to what happens in her own life.

In Chughai’s The Crooked Line the main character, Shaman, pretty much just goes with the flow of life. She does not appear to ever really try and make things better in her own personal life. Shaman does do what she can to help the school she was headmistress of become a little better at least for a short while, but it did not do anything to benefit her personally. She took the job as the headmistress because of the hard times of the economy, and it seemed like it was all there was left to do. So it makes me wonder if there was not an opening as a headmistress, what else would she have ended up doing for work?