Friday, December 4, 2009
Rushdie, Gatsby, Hamid, Revolution, Art, Propaganda, and my own cranky curmudgeonry
Rushdie's fresh on my mind, as is a nagging irritation I felt while writing my paper about Shame and the controversies surrounding it. One major detractor essentially took Rushdie to task for writing a book that condemned the Pakistani elite and not (as the critic would have it) writing a novel that could be used as a blueprint for revolution. When did novels become responsible for saving the world? I'm deeply uncomfortable with the over-politicization of novels. Certainly Shame is political, but it is also personal. Certainly The Great Gatsby allows for extrapolation of certain conclusions about the America it depicts. But there is a reason that The Great Gatsby is beautiful, a reason that Shame is beautiful (not as beautiful probably), and a reason that The Reluctant Fundamentalist is ugly. Hamid writes with a SPECIFIC, predetermined political agenda. Fitzgerald wrote to write a story. His politics inevitably come through the story, but that's not the same thing as setting out with a political agenda in mind. The Great Gatsby is a great novel that can be read, among other ways, politically. The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a shallow piece of propaganda masquerading as a novel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your comment "when did novels become responsible for changing the world?" I guess authors don't really take on the onus of changing the world unless they are all like Dickens. However, I don't think Fitzgerald wrote just to write a story. There's definitely a political message in there. Perhaps you meant he didn't have it in mind to be as politically charged as the reluctant fundamentalist. In that case I agree. You didn't like the language of the latter (Hamid's work) as much, right? I didn't either. I nevertheless, I was compelled by the story a lot. I wouldn't exactly say he had a reductive view of Americans. I think that these generalizations we make about the world, in this novel, carry their own messages in raising my own awareness of generalizations. Do I make any sense? I really need to dig deeper if I until I could convince you to like this work. haha
ReplyDeleteI agree with thao's comment that generalizations in a novel can help raise one's awareness of generalizations. And if compelling people to reevaluate preconceived notions - they may be biases, ignorant assumptions, misinformation - isn't changing the world, then what's the point of politics? Especially in the United States, democracy dictates that politicians should do whatever the most people vote to do (in theory). If an engaging allegorical novel, such as Shame, or a "shallow piece of propaganda masquerading as a novel," such as The Reluctant Fundamentalist, can get people to question their own ideals, morals, or behavior, that would be where a novel's political sway comes into play. I can understand your frustration at the idea that someone could write propaganda with the intention of promoting a certain political ideal, but it seems to me that The Reluctant Fundamentalist is just trying to get Americans to think about what America is doing in the world. Most Americans don't seem to consider the consequences of our countries' actions abroad, and Hamid may very well be trying to change that. But he doesn't lay out a blueprint for change, he just compelling readers to consider change on their own accord.
ReplyDelete