One of many things that Rushdie does extremely well is transpose symbols, in some cases, engendering them out of roles. For instance, the muscle-bound women wrestlers who protect Naseem’s virtue (33) take the procession of phallic (nose) imagery up to that point to sexual non-being of their masculine features. There is the repetitive reference to the nose in close proximity to signs of absurd virility but that seems to only set the tone.
The references to Heidelberg seem to be a similar kind of strategy. It functions to bridge the Amero/European readership to conceptualize Kashmiri plot with that of the river valley Heidelberg region (“mountain of the saints”). Then again, it is the equivalent of an Easter egg in a computer program, except for academics to find. It is almost as if Salman Rushdie had his sights on the booker in the early stages of his process. This history might have needed to be told in the form of myth to be more coherent.
Rushdie’s use of sexuality and Naipaul’s differ profoundly. While I prefer Rushdie’ s I think this weekend it became apparent to me why sexuality is so prevalent in this discourse. If the last two books we have read deal with identity construction of people of Diasporas;’ then the sexual conceit becomes obvious in something Osho says about sex and creation. The only way and individual comes close the Big Bang i.e. creation is procreation. I do think it appears symbolically due to the theme of pre and post national distinctiveness but it also appears as a baser precursor identity. With all the inherent boundaries of nationalistic identity construction one has to wonder whether the precursor isn’t superior. Rushdie’s book intertwines sexual and national images in a way that argues against me but it is overtly sexual.
The theme of authenticity can be further reduced to legitimacy in Rushdie’s narrative whereas A Bend in the River deals with a somewhat purified authenticity that is irrelevant to the flow of history that inhabits its river basin. “So I was brought to my mother; and she never really doubted my authenticity for an instant.” (152) Because of his mother’s high hopes for him even before birth what is spoken of as authenticity can be viewed in terms of legitimacy in the wake of new government and what is expected of the hero. To Naipul legitimacy becomes irrelevant because of the powerlessness of his characters.
Both novels might make us question authenticity. Saleem's illegitimacy can also be a kind of literary mockery: this is a family history, quasi-religious, leading to his birth - but none of it pertains to his ancestry, even though he possesses the family trait: a big nose. Isn't Rushdie mocking the literary structure? Can you be spiritually legitimate and yet physically alien?
ReplyDelete