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.