Jason - Rushdie - 2/16

Based on Saleem’s narrative, it seems to be irrelevant whether what he says actually happened in the reality of the story or even in the reality that the story is superimposed upon. On page 87, Saleem states, “‘What’s real and what’s true aren’t necessarily the same.’ True, for me, was from my earliest days something hidden in the stories…True was a thing concealed just over the horizon…” What I take this to mean is: despite the factual accuracy of a given event there is an underlying meaning to that event which can then be manipulated into another form, another kind of “factual event,” so that it appears to be presented differently, though the meaning remains basically the same. This little passage seems more or less to be a discussion of magical realism and its power to take the latent meaning of something and presenting it in some other way. An example of this follows immediately after the passage above in which Saleem says that, based upon this criteria for the truth, his mother really did know about him six months before his birth (presumably referring to the events at Ramram’s prophecy-giving ritual) and that his father really did come up against a demon king (here presumably referring to Ahmed’s encounter with the Ravana Organization). In both instances one fact is replaced with another, but because the meaning or intent of the meaning is the same, the factual descriptions of these events are in a way interchangeable. In these terms, the question as to whether Saleem is a reliable narrator who “tells the truth” is still applicable. The truth that Saleem tells is a subjective truth, though because many facts are presented in a “magical” light they may seem to be beyond the scope of subjective observation. These magical details/facts are perhaps an even more subjective version of the truth since the facts presented to the reader are based upon the frame of reference of the narrator (Saleem) who’s presumably the source of the novel’s seemingly distorted and exaggerated picture of reality.

Eidia.1.16.11- Rushdie

Different ways of falling in love or learning to love:

 In Rushdie's Midnights Children, the notion of love is fragmented, and through two primary examples (Aadam/Naseem and Amina/Ahmed), this concept is displayed in parallels. With the case of Aadam and Naseem, love is presented as an illusion, only to be merely accepted through Aadam's gradual introduction to Naseem, in physical segments. He receives Naseem as a body, without recognizing her soul and mind, which later when fully conceived after marriage, Aadam realizes to be a contradiction to his own set of ideologies and principles of life. His love for Naseem was merely illusory, which through commitment of marriage resulted in companionship, lacking any sort of mutual understanding, a mentally fragmented, dysfunctional relationship. Purely obligated towards the title of "marriage", but conducted through compromise. In a similar manner, in the second generation, Aadam and Naseem's second eldest daughter, Mumtaz/Amina, attempts to love her husband Ahmed. In this situation; however, Amina receives a husband (Ahmed) as a whole, but finds it necessary to thread him together in fragments. She begins to individually gather minute details of his character, learning to love them, making them grander by focusing on the beauty of such aspects. (ex. his loud voice, moods before and after shaving, disproportionate lips). As a result, just as her father had erred in recognizing his love as partial to Naseem's physicality, Amina commits the same misjudgment, for she begins to love Ahmed's distinct characteristics, completely disassociating them from his personality-- as a whole.

Mumtaz's assiduousness leads her to love her husband piece by piece. But is it false? I'm not sure... After all, India itself and the novel itself are composed of a million parts. But Mumtaz/Amina's true love was for Nadir - she never forgot him. This flies in the face of western notions of romantic love... in so many ways. Robin.

Will - Rushdie - 2/16

Though this is a novel set in India, that doesn't stop Rushdie referencing myths from other cultures.  One example is the character of Mary Pereira, described as "plump, virginal" (115), who is transformed into Saleem's other "mother" when she switches the name-tags of the two babies born at the stroke of midnight (echoing the idea that Ahmed became Mumtaz's father after renaming her Amina). 

We meet her on page 114 in a confessional where a young priest tells her that Christ was blue.  She asks because of an argument she had with an ex-lover, Joseph D'Costa, who is something of a marxist, informing her that "the air comes from the north now," (116) not the west.  When Joseph tells her that poor people are rioting in the streets, Mary says, "But Joseph, even if it's true about the killing, they're Hindu and Muslim people only; why get good Christian folk mixed up in that fight?"  Joseph replies, "You and your Christ.  You can't get it into your head that that's the white people's religion?" (116).  In this way, Christianity is associated with the rich and powerful, maintenance of the status quo, looking the other way, and tacit support of violence.  Islam and Hinduism are associated for D'Costa with the poor Indians, and these religions could be a conduit for nationalist and revolutionary spirit.  Mother Mary Pereira perpetrates her own "private revolutionary act" (130), giving a poor-born baby to a rich family, because she wants to impress Joseph.  Ironically, she gives a rich life to the fair, half-white son of William Methwold, and a poor life to the darker Indian baby.  Mary's act shows the complicated ways religion, politics, and race play off each other in the novel.

I have a funny thought about this - Padma feels deceived that Saleem (similar to Salman, who had an actress-model wife named Padma) is half-white. So does the reader, expecting a testimony of the South Asian experience. It's a joke, I think. Also, in Mary's desire to win Joseph's love - I think there are echoes of the Hebrew Bible here: women are always trying to win the love of the patriarchs by producing children. Robin.

Joseph-Rushdie-2/16

I wanted to discuss the role that spit has played so far in our reading of ‘Midnight’s Children’.   Our first real encounter with spit is in the beginning of the chapter appropriately titled: “Hit-the-Spittoon”. Saleem describes to the reader that he is falling apart, “brained by spittoons”.  This is an odd phrase, but if we read further I believe my interpretation of spit as memory can be corroborated. In the next paragraph, Saleem states: “It is important for me to remain calm. I chew betel nut and expectorate in the direction of a cheap brassy bowl, playing the ancient game of hit-the-spittoon: Nadir Khan’s game, which he learned from the old men in Agra”. It is as if memory and legacy is embedded in the saliva’s of the men who have spit into the spittoon, and Saleem is anxious that he will eventually be reduced to a salvia remnant.  It is also telling that it is “Nadir Khan’s game.” Nadir Khan was the first husband of Amina, and a reason for their divorce is his impotence. Saleem is also impotent, and his impotence is treated as if it is a game of Nadir Khan’s ‘Hit-the-Spittoon’: "Despite Padma’s many and varied gifts and ministrations, I can’t leak into her…Despite everything she tries, I cannot hit her spittoon.”

What is the connection between the spittoon and impotence? I think there is a connection between both men’s (Nadir/Saleem) freewheeling, abstract flights of fancy and the two women’s (Amina and Padma) pragmatism and rationality. I was thinking of the ‘Evil Eye’ in India and Pakistan legend.  According to John Abbot in the book “Indian ritual and belief: the keys of power”, spitting is sometimes used to protect someone from excessive admiration (Thus Abbot says it is common for mothers to lightly spit to the side of the child to suggest a sense of fallibility that protects against the ‘evil eye’). In the case of ‘Midnight’s Children’, perhaps the criticisms (a form of verbal ‘spitting’ or disapproval, if you will) that Padma provides for Saleem is a way to dispel his excessive self-indulgences, and this leaves him impotent? If this were considered, why would criticisms leave him completely impotent? Is he nothing if he is not indulging in fantasies and mythologizing himself?

Great post. - Robin.

Rushdie for 2/16: unity and partiality

In Nabokovian fashion, Rushdie has written a novel that is composed of many details and a complex time scheme (as in Nabokov's Ada). As a result, it is difficult to discuss the book in a linear fashion. So, in our posts, let's embrace the particulars - the details. In class on Wednesday, we will discuss (close read) six or seven key passages from the text. Please choose more than one of the following motifs / themes / questions in the atomistic world of Midnight's Children as a basis for your post about pages 3-133. Please read through them all; they are intended as an incomplete list of themes: What are the significances of:  i) Mumtaz skin color and her "underground" first marriage and the reasons for its failure; iii) different ways of falling in love or learning to love; i.e. the case of Aadam and that of Mumtaz/Amina in her attempt to love Ahmed; iv) pickles, pencils, potency; v) colors: red (mercurochrome, blood, betel juice), blue (Krishna); vi) knees and nose and powerful physical attributes; vii) the prophecies of Saleem's birth and significance: "even fortune tellers have limited gifts" (131); viii) monkeys (Amina is the Brass Monkey; "the mnkeys are possessed of an overriding sense of mission" (93), snakes (Saleem plays Snakes and Ladders), or birds (Mian Abdullah is known as the Hummingbird; Aziz's father is deprived of birds due to cold weather in Kashmir);  ix) various uses of the ideas of spitting: "despite everything she tries, I cannot hit her spittoon"; spitting is also an old man's game and a marital activity for Mumtaz and Nadir Khan), etcetera;  (18); x) paradox of partitioning as unification - relation of this to Methwold's center-parted hair; xi) theme of history as myth in MC and in Naipaulr's BITR; xii) view of sexuality in MC and in Naipaul's BITR; xiii) "magical elements" in postcolonial fiction: what purpose do they serve that is peculiar to this kind of fiction? xiv) Naipaul's realism and focused, subjective (from one person's point of view) storytelling versus Rushdie's approach - do their styles conceal differing political attitudes? xv) who loves truly in this story and why? xvi) Rushdie's use of an intense build-up to Saleem's birth - ironic or satiric? xvii) heritage and ancestry; xviii) find one verifiable historical event: is it presented as truth or folkloric storytelling?; xix) find one reference to Judaism, one to Catholicism, one to Hinduism - Islam is hidden in plain sight; xx) Naipaul's attitude toward superstition appears to be negative; how does Rushdie's apparent attitude differ? xxi) we know there are references to A Thousand and One Nights: does the double birth echo any well-known sources? xxii) the first passage contains three genres of discourse: autobiography, fairy tale, and history... does the book contain drama, the major mode of fictional narratives? xxiii) often when we read first-person narratives, we ask: are the events "true" or just the character's fabrication? how would you answer that question here or is it even relevant - is it the wrong question for this kind of fiction? xxiv) on page 129, Rushdie quotes at length from Nehru's "Tryst with Destiny" speech: how does this historical document relate to the story at hand?; xxv) failed or foiled attempts to have children - Mumtaz/Nadir; Saleem's childlessness; Saleem's unrelatedness to the Sinai family; Alia's childlessness; India's "children" in the form of Pakistan and Bangladesh; Wee Willie Winky's cuckolding by Methwold; Dr. Narlikar's campaign to promote birth control; xxvi) the peforated sheet is not the only thing with holes in it; before we get to it, on page 5, about Aadam: "Many years later, when the hole inside him had been clogged up with hate, and he came to sacrifice himself..." People, throughout the book, have holes in them.

Jane- Rushdie- 2/14/10

1. "(...And already I can see the repetitions beginning; because didn't my grandmother also find enormous...and the stroke, too, was not the only...and the Brass Monkey had her birds...the curse begins already, and we haven't even got to the noses yet!)" (Rushdie, 7).

Saleem Sinai's voice has an adolescent, enthusiastic quality coupled with colloquial speech combined with moments that are filled with lyrical, vivid descriptions. The colloquial quality of his voice is matched with an intellect that does not quite seem pretentious- but stems from his education abroad. By jumping around in the story and referencing upcoming passages in the narrative, Saleem emphasizes his voice and presence as the narrator and creates and effect on the reader of being enthusiastic listeners and participants in the story. There is an air of innocence and naivete in Salim's voice.

Anna –Rushdie- Valentines day

I love this book. Rushdie puts a terrible amount of stuff into every line, but once you get into it you stay into it. He has an amazing way of flitting from macro view to micro view to macro view to micro. The prose is very abstract and flowery and poetic and I can tell Padma is his “device” to keep the reader anchored. I don’t mind it. Padma is the reader, the logic hungry tell me next. Rushdie is certainly the storyteller here, and the story he promises to make an epic fairytale. It seems to me to be a bit like an Indian One Hundred Years of Solitude.

Joseph-Rushdie-2/14

-The voice of the protagonist in 'Midnight's Children' is a playful, very self aware one. It is not the reportage, streamlined style of Salim in 'A Bend in the River'. At multiple points in 'Midnight's Children', he acknowledges his presence to the reader, and he is very aware of his role as enchanter and storyteller. I enjoy this first person self awareness, mainly because(in my reading experience) a first person narrator who acknowledges their presence is usually a deranged or sick person. It's nice to have a seemingly fun and sane narrator be self-referential.

Rushdie is obviously a lover of language and rhythm, and I can really sense his admitted influences; most namely Vladimir Nabokov and Thomas Pynchon. This novel is full of inventive energy(Rushdie, before reading a selection from 'Midnight's Children', once remarked that it must be like when the Rolling Stones are asked to play 'Satisfaction'). I could pick so many passages from what we have read, but here is perhaps my favorite. It is the opening passage of 'Hit-The-Spittoon':

"I mean quite simply that I have begun to crack all over like a old jug-that my poor body, singular, unlovely, buffeted by too much history, subjected to drainage above and drainage below, mutilated by doors, brained by spittoons, has started coming apart at the seams".

I marveled at things like 'Mutilated by doors' and 'Brained by spittoons'. Beautiful stuff. The pacing is this particular passage is masterful, as something as rough and robust as a jug is transformed into nothing but a ball of wayward strings.

Karol - Rushdie -2/14

         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.

Eidia- Rushdie- 2.13.11

8. Language - 

Stylistically, Midnight's Children, emphasizes a variation of linguistics involving colloquial speech intertwined with elegant "high" bred and educated dialogue. In the introduction, the narrator seems to be at conflict with his own thoughts, and we the readers are lured into this confusion, indecisiveness regarding at which point the tale of Saleem Sinai should embark. By creating this scene, Rushdie begins to allow the readers to become one of Saleem's audience members, almost in a sense enrolling in the same mode of eagerness displayed via Padma, an attentive yet restless listener. We are turned into curious little children, and Saleem a master craftsman of storytelling. 

Basically, thus far, the form of language is divided between descriptions and dialogue. While most of the narrative details are provided via Saleem's perspective, the dialogue inserts an array of voices, exerting a spectrum of speech. An example of this tactic is cleverly displayed during the earlier passage of Tai's boat. We are aware that Aadam Aziz is to attend to a certain landowner's ill daughter, and with this ensuing task, comes a series of dialogues shifting between Tai and Aadam, Aadam's mother and Aadam, and lastly Ghani and Aadam. This rhythmic mode conversation displays the colloquial banter of a semi rogue like quality of Tai, who uses a very strong sense of reckless hatred towards Aziz's western grooming and bag, and also introduces a series of Hindi words, "nacho", "tu" (informal "you"), "aap" (formal "you"), we are also given a sense of non factual form of Indian folklore, tales which are transferred by mouth, generation to generation. 

This mode of dialogue carries itself into many more parts of the novel, including the scene in which Amina pleads with Ahmed not to purchase Methwold's Buckingham Villa, which so beautifully synchronized with Ahmed's conversation with Methwold, who so magnificently hypnotizes Ahmed, successfully maneuvering him into purchasing the house. What follows is a series of remarks between the neighbors of the four homes owned by Methwold, each bringing forth a series of detestation regarding the remnants of British lifestyles, from the ceiling fans, goldfish, to almaris, all of which seem to taunt the tenants, bewildering them with a burden. 

Rachel - Rushdie, 2/14

I love this book.  "There are dynasties waiting in it, like snot."  (p. 8)

Not going to lie - I was tempted to leave that as my entire post.  But no.  I'll be good.

Since rivers seem to be a common theme in books by Indian - or expatriated "Indian washed" people, like Hesse - I'm going to talk about the ferryboatman, Tai.  (Isn't there a similar character in Siddhartha?  I forget.  I read that my senior year of high school, and my teacher referred to it as: "the book to write about when you have no idea what to write on your AP exam essay."  His reasoning for this, I gathered, was the fact that Siddhartha is the Moby Dick of contemporary literature...its main theme is aslkdjgwieg???, also known as "whatever you want.")

Either way, Rushdie introduces the river as point where modern India and traditional customs clash.  Tai, the riverboatman, was once friendly with the young Aadam Aziz.  You might even say close, and in a taboo way, since on page 10, Aadam's mother tries to wash lower-caste Tai's "germs" off her son.

But when Aadam comes home from German medical school as Dr. Aziz, his strong friendship with Tai degrades into skepticism and distrust.  This is primarily because the riverboatman deeply distrusts European influence, especially that of modern medicine.  On p. 16, Rushdie writes:

"...Do you still pickle water-snakes in brandy to give you virility, Taiji?  Do you still like to eat lotus-root without any spices?"  Hesitant questions, brushed aside by the torrent of Tai's fury.  Dr. Aziz begins to diagnose.  To the ferryboatman, the bag represents Abroad; it is the Alien thing, the invader, progress."

Does this strike memories of water hyacinths?  Interesting parallel to Naipaul.

Hannah-Rushdie-2/14/2011

The question of truth and fabrication are present in both Naipaul and Rushie's novels. In A Bend in the River, the reader had to decide whether to believe Salim's accounts of his life and the lives of the other characters. This is also present in Midnight's Children. On page 62, Saleem says that "Family history, of course, has its proper dietary laws. One is supposed to swallow and digest only the permitted parts of it... Letting no blood escape from the body of the tale, I arrive at the unspeakable part; and undaunted, press on". Although he claims to be pushing out all the details of the past, there's no guarantee that the narrator is telling the whole truth. He might be fabricating the use of his grandfather's nose or about the prophet and so on. There's always a need to remind oneself that this story is being told from one perspective and from a narrator that wasn't even alive for a section of the book.

The use of ellipses throughout the novel also indicates that Saleem is either leaving certain details out or Rushdie is using them to create a more realistic narration (using ellipses to signify a break to think about what is being written, etc.). For example on page 74, "(But she remained susceptible to the forbidden dream-images of... and was always drawn to men with soft stomachs and longish, lankish hair.)"

On page 87, S.P. Butt said, "If they can change the time just like that, what's real anymore? I ask you? What's true?" What's real and what's true depends on who is telling the story. Saleem's perspective is real and true to him, even when he leaves out certain details, but can be a completely different experience for somebody else.

Will - Rushdie - 2/14

Late in part one on page 121, Saleem writes, "To understand just one life, you have to swallow the world."  In order to understand Saleem's life, the reader has to know all the forces, from decisions made by his grandparents to national politics, that went into the event of his birth.  To understand Saleem's life is to understand something of the story of the Indian nation.  The whole of India, of course, is made up of many parts, many different ethnic and religious groups, and many millions of stories like that of Saleem. 

The image of the perforated sheet is a perfect metaphor for the reader's view of the story, and by extension the view of his own life.  Aadam Aziz doctors Naseem through a seven-inch hole in a sheet, and forms what he describes as "a badly-fitting collage of her severally-inspected parts" (22).  It is this badly-fitting collage that he falls in love with.  Aziz, like every living being, knows only parts of the whole, and through his ignorance makes a bad choice.  Similarly, Saleem tells his story in pieces, flashing forward and back through time, dropping clues about what is to come that only make sense in retrospect, leaving the reader to form his own badly-fitting collage.  The narrative style makes sense because memory is non-linear.  The image of the perforated sheet echoes throughout the story, like in the story of Saleem's mother Amina Sinai, who decides to learn to love her husband piece by piece, but finds she cannot love a certain crucial part of him.

Saleem himself knows less about the meaning of the whole than his confidence would indicate.  He writes as if he is the successor to Tai the boatman, who seemed to know all of history, but his storytelling is also a search for meaning.  He doesn't want to let the jumble of his life be reduced to absurdity.  

Jason - Rushdie - 2/14

So far, Saleem seems to be the narrator of Midnight’s Children. He is particularly concerned with relating his family’s history starting from the time of his grandfather, Aadam Aziz. Saleem associates himself closely with his grandfather because he describes himself as having inherited a similar, if the same kind, of nose his grandfather had, which is apparently very large and seems to be capable of significant feats. For one, Saleem seems to use his nose to smell out the odors of certain memories, which to an extent seems logical enough, though a peculiarity of Saleem’s case appears to be that his olfactory capacity is more or less able to use this sense of smell to determine events that have occurred in the past. This kind of magical-realist detail is further compounded by Saleem’s admission that he is a master cook whose “latter days [have been dedicated] to the large-scale preparation of condiments,” primarily chutneys and kasaundies. After being prompted by Padma (his housekeeper?) to hurry up with the pace of his story, Saleem explains, “things – even people – have a way of leaking into each other,” suggesting a correlation between the process of cooking, or at least the process of something being cooked, and history as a non-linear narrative. In this sense, Saleem’s voice, which is very clearly tied to his sense of history (through his sense of smell), is one of apparent non-linearity. Still, much of the story so far has progressed more or less linearly, at least in terms of plot. Though, the thoughts and ideas expressed by Saleem are at times almost synesthetic and full of interruptions from outside the proper narrative.

Rushdie! for 2/14

Welcome to the bizarre and - I hate this word - magical world of Midnight's Children, one of the masterpieces of the contemporary era. Let's approach the beginning in a more general, meditative spirit. Make your answers a meditation on the following motifs in the text - be as creative with this as you like (this is a prompt that will be repeated for future postings): 1. the voice of Saleem Sinai - how do we know him? 2. the lake and the ferryman: compare with Naipaul's river... 3. parts and wholes (parts of people, the partially visible, body parts... do what you like with this). 4. use of mythic or folkloric or oral tradition story elements 5. the individual and community - the voices of people and the voice of the community or group: where do you hear each voice? 6. echoes of religious stories, such as Genesis 7. (as in Naipaul) questions of truth or fabrication; 8. language - find some passsages that allow you to comment on Rushdie's use of unusual words, words specific to a group, words that don't seem to belong in a story like this; 9. agency: do people do things? or are they somehow pushed into their actions by outside forces: what are these foces?


Many of these can be used twice: you can use a question someone else has used. Just find a different angle. Please refer to at least one passage with page number and quoted beginning.

Hannah-Naipaul -02/09/2011

For my paper, I would be interested in exploring the Latin phrase on page 62. "Miscerique probat populos et foedera jungi" - "He approves of the mingling of the peoples and their bonds of union". On page 63, Naipaul writes that "... the great Roman god approves of the mingling of peoples and the making of treaties in Africa". I would like to compare Salim's life to Virgil's Aeneid, focusing on the Roman hero's accidental landing in Africa instead of Italy, where he was to find the Roman Empire.

Aeneas and his crew, after being caught up in Charybdis' whirlpool, end up on the shores of Africa and through divine intervention by Venus, Aeneas' mother, he meets Dido, the queen of Africa. They fall in love and Aeneas intends to stay with Dido, but Jupiter sends Mercury to remind Aeneas of his true fate, which is to fight a war in Italy and claim it as his own. As Aeneas leaves, Dido kills herself with his sword and with her dying breath, condemns Aeneas' future people and predicts a continually raging war between the Africans and future Romans (Page 62 - "... the great Roman god might not approve if a settlement in Africa, of a mingling of peoples there, of treaties of union between Africans and Romans").

Like Aeneas, Salim is a wanderer and is constantly lost. The Latin phrase applies to his life because he is of South Asian descent and is a "mingling" person and cannot come to make "treaties" with Africa. He is constantly torn between what he wants and what is expected of him, such as moving away to the "true Africa" (10) or marrying Nazruddin's daughter and settling down. The distinctions of Europe and Africa are clear in both men, each having to choose one or the other. But for Salim, it's more of having a European mindset and choosing whether to live like an African (what he thought it was to be an African). Salim doesn't have a grasp on his own identity, having to do with his relationships and being a foreigner in a country he lived all his life.

Dan - Niapaul - 2/9/2011

Stylistically Niapaul really creates his own thing here. But finishing the book I felt somewhat ungratified. Maybe I need some more time away from the novel to really get a grasp on it. There is so much that Niapual is trying to say with this work that I’m not sure all of it really came to the forefront (at least for me.) So I definitely feel that this book needs a second read before I can make any strong accusations about it. If I did a paper on this I would like to focus on the aspects of the book that have been seen as controversial, or topics that people have found or called controversial. These can be seen in the similarities of between Salim’s fictional country and the Congo. I also feel that most of the characters (Zebeth, the depiction of the president, Yvette) represent integral cultural and sociopolitical aspects that can be found in both the Africa of the new and the Africa of the old. They all play into Niapaul’s overall political commentary of the continent. 

Anna- Naipaul- 2/9

If I were to write a paper about this book it would address Naipaul’s depiction of women. As a woman, the book pushes me away, because the attitude is not a neutral but one with a negative cast, and since the author is so in control and aware of everything he is doing in the novel, and it is clear he is not making a social commentary, it reads disturbingly so that I distrust him and his characters. And who wants to spend time being held up in a book with a writer who is NOT ON YOUR SIDE? 

Since I have already written on this topic a bit, right now I am less interested in debating the treatment, and starting to wonder if the reason I find Salim to be so creepy (his sexuality included) because he has no experiences with love. Through the book we are not shown many actions triggered by a “love force”. For Salim, marriage is a contract, sex is mechanical (even with Yvette) Family love is not present. The only relationship in the book that seems to be loving is between Shoba and Mahesh but every time their union is described by Salim he mentions (over and over) Mahesh sees himself as the man Shoba wants him to be.. or something of this nature, so it is not a true love concept that Salim sees, but a twisted perception of adoration and identity. 

Perhaps Salim wanted to fall in love with Yvette and that was what began to draw him to her when he says, “My wish for an adventure with Yvette was a wish to be taken up to the skies, to be removed from the life I had--- “ (pg. 183) But then, she was ordinary too

170 and 140 Salim being bewitched by Yvette, drawn to her differences but afraid

Home is normally a safe loving memory. Pg 107 Salim says, “ Home was hardly a place I could return to. Home was something in my head. It was something I had lost.”

Loving slave/servant dynamic. Could this be the reason Salim gets so mad when he finds out 105, Metty has a child and a woman, love?

Jane- Naipaul- 2/9/2011

I would like to further explore Naipaul's employment and symbolism of the natural motifs throughout A Bend in the River. One motif I found striking- even though it doesn't quite qualify as natural- are the African masks which on page 65 Salim has a very visceral reaction to: "The bush was full of spirits; in the bush hovered all the protecting presences of a man's ancestors; and in this room all the spirits of those dead maks, the powers they invoked, all the religious dread of simple men, seemed to have been concentrated". Much besides the immediate reaction to these masks, they seem to be emblematic of Father Huismans outlook on the progress of Africa and its European ties, an vision which Salim seems to share. I also find the River and water hyacinths to be telling motifs, particularly the passage on p. 46 that details the natives reactions to the water hyacinths as the "new things" brought over from Europe as well as the passage regailing Father Huismans' death which ties in nicely to his views regarding European influence on Africa.

Rachel - Naipaul, 2/9

I just finished the novel last night - or, more precisely, in the wee hours of this morning.  It was one of those times where you close the book, place it on your desk, and think: "ohhhh...kay??"  What is this novel about?  I'm not really sure - in a bad way.  I feel like I'd have to read it again to get any significant grasp on it.

So even though I have yet to bushwhack my way through Midnight's Children, I'm pretty sure any future papers will analyze this work instead of A Bend in the River.  However, I was going to write a paper the Naipaul book, it would definitely be a feminist critical perspective.  The second most prominent idea I took away from this novel was that of wounded masculinity, and the need to dominate the feminine in order to compensate for a perceived loss of power.

-- The President's "monkey speech"
-- The Youth Guard's reaction to the monkey speech, in which they lash out at people they were supposed to protect
-- the juxtaposition of Yvette's sex versus brothel sex
-- Salim beating Yvette passage

But I have no real intent of carrying this out...so someone else can feel free to take this idea and run with it.

Joseph-Naipaul Paper -2/9/2011

For a potential paper, I would be interested in focusing upon Naipaul's style. It operates within it's own middle ground,much like Naipaul attempts to forge a middle ground between his critique of both colonizers and the colonized. Naipaul has a style that is at times both translucent and ambiguous;subordinating and additive shifting narrative voices. I think it is this managing of the middle that gives Naipaul his tone that sets you at ease and feels like a naturally unfolding narrative;much like the remarks that people make about Tolstoy.


Some quotes that I would consider:


"Going home at night! It wasn't often that I was on the river at night. I never liked it. I never felt in control. In the darkness of river and forest you could be sure only of what you could see — and even on a moonlight night you couldn't see much. When you made a noise — dipped a paddle in the water — you heard yourself as though you were another person. The river and the forest were like presences, and much more powerful than you. You felt unprotected, an intruder ... You felt the land taking you back to something that was familiar, something you had known at some time but had forgotten or ignored, but which was always there. You felt the land taking you back to what was there a hundred years ago, to what had been there always."


(This paragraph is exemplary of Naipaul's shifting style. We are given an ambiguous opening, then provided a little more detail, and then the initial message of the paragraph is subverted, while still retaining ambiguity in a different form. The narrator never feels in control, yet the land takes you back to something familiar that has been there always.  The narrator is in sensory control(he can hear himself dip a paddle in the water), yet when he makes a sound he feels as if he is someone else. These kinds of contrasts within a single space make up much of 'A Bend in the River'.


Obviously I would consider the opening sentence. Joan Didion(I believe she cited she got this remark from Henry James, but I cannot be sure) once stated that the first sentence is perhaps the most important,and after the second sentence you can't go back. Naipaul begins the book as such:


"The world is what it is; "The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it....

It wasn't only the sand drifts and the mud and the narrow, winding, broken roads up in the mountains. There was all that business at the frontier posts, all that haggling in the forest outside wooden huts that flew strange flags. I had to talk myself and my Peugeot past the men with guns -- just to drive through bush and more bush. And then I had to talk even harder, and shed a few more bank notes and give away more of my tinned food, to get myself -- and the Peugeot -- out of the places I had talked us into.

Some of these palavers could take half a day...."

(There is a kind of extended meditation even in the first sentence that seems to suggest that it could unravel at any moment at the turn of another thought. One semi-colon and two commas prevent the first sentence from being simply saying "The world is what it is". Even if Naipaul included the rest of the first sentence as the beginning of the second sentence(; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.... ) it still would not have the same effect as the almost back and forth yet streamlined effect that the original opening sentence holds.)


"I often wonder what would have happened to me if I hadn't made that decision. I suppose I would have sunk. I suppose I would have found some kind of hole and tried to hide or pass. After all, we make ourselves according to the ideas we have of our possibilities. I would have hidden in my hole and been crippled by my sentimentality, doing what I was doing, and doing it well, but always looking for the wailing wall. And I would never have seen the world as the rich place that it is. You wouldn't have seen me here in Africa, doing what I do." 


(This sentence would show Naipaul's acerbic wit. It is funny that the narrator is counting his lucky stars that he has finally found a place and is not 'looking for the wailing wall', because he is looking for that wall throughout the book,and never finds it. I'd like to take some moments in the paper to discuss how Naipaul constructs the dark humor in 'A Bend in the River).

Karol - Bend in The River -02/09

I would like to discuss what are considered natural boundaries and what are considered artificial boundaries in Naipul's book. The specific divisions between societal convention and superstructure of the places mentioned in the novel interest me because they seem at times to transition outside of geographical space. The novel seems to delineate between place and space. Non-places as defined by Marc Auge are places that do not hold enough significance to be defined as anything other than space. An airport, a McDonalds, a hotel room all look familiar to the inhabitant even though the actual geography is hazy.

The experience of flying, for Salim, is disorienting in a way that demonstrates the airport as a non-place. "It was like being two places at once. I woke up in London with little bits of Africa on me..." (227) The Bigburger is described as coming already equipped as if it had popped out of the ground cartoonishly: "They don't just send you the sauce, you know, Salim. They send you the whole shop." (98) The domain's cartography is also unrecognizable to its inhabitants. "Our ideas of men were simple; Africa was a place where we had to survive. But in the Domain it was different. There they could scoff at trade and gold, because in the magical atmosphere of the Domain, among the avenues and new houses, another Africa had been created." (119) Africa in a sense is a space more then just a place. The whole of the population of Naipul's book make up what is Africa and that in a sense can not be superimposed over (the absurdity rests with the attempt).

Eidia- Naipaul paper- February 9th

7. A character study of Salim in relation to his concept of masculinity

In Naipaul’s novel, A Bend in the River, the concept of masculinity is not given a solid definition. Instead, the readers are compelled to use events and actions involving Salim, and determine Salim’s relations with his own masculinity.

As an example, despite moving away from his life on the coast, enduring the pains of the journey from the coast to the bush, Salim very much relied on certain aspects which still connected him to home, he still had a very fluid sense of dependency, which was further solidified by certain events. One such example is Metty’s arrival to town, including the arrival of pickles from Salim’s mother: “Ginger and sauces and spices from my mother.” (pg. 31) In the same passage, there is also a segment describing a photograph sent to Salim from his father, entailing the possibility of the co-existence of religion and modernity: “Two family photographs from my father, and a wall print on a cheap paper of one of our holy places in Gujurat, showing it as a modern place.” (pg.31). Maintaining these minute gestures between himself and his parents in a sense entails Salim’s continued openness towards drawing influences from his roots, whether they be dietary or religious. With a sense of ideal masculinity, Salim should as an individual, be able to dictate his own direction in life.

Another situation in which Salim compromises his own masculine assertions is his vulnerability to allow external figures dictate his viewpoints. With the case of Indar’s arrival, again there is a scene involving food sent for Salim from his mother. In this passage, Indar makes it a point, repetitively that Salim is to share the chutney with Metty. This scenario almost alludes to the notion that Salim is incapable of committing generous acts of humanity, as simple as sharing, without being reminded of doing so.

In his somewhat oppressed form of masculinity in more practical manners, Salim somehow discovers it hidden in his sexual encounters. He manages to accomplish himself, making himself more established in this practice. With prostitutes, Salim composed a choreographed manner of engaging in sexual activity, but at the same time concealing the fact from both Metty and Ferdinand. While Ferdinand did not inhabit Salim’s living quarters, Metty did; hence, this bringing in and taking out of the prostitutes became a crucial part of this routine, for Metty is not meant to be exposed to Salim’s new found masculinity. Engaging in his pleasure with the prostitutes, being able to conduct a sexual act was self assurance for Salim, that he did have control over his sexuality, but while he dissembled this from Metty, he was maintaining a sense of honor. He was keeping with whom he established the act with a secret, not that he was engaging in such conduct. Later, when Yvette establishes herself as Salim’s regular lovemaking partner, he does not find it necessary to retain this information from Metty anymore, for now, he is not only having sex, but he is having sex with a woman of class. He asserts his masculinity by not shying away from his deeds, for with Yvette, he acknowledges his associations with her,  for in most of their evening dalliances, Metty is present in the flat.

Will - Naipaul paper - 2/9

I want to explore the concept of "acting" in the novel, stemming from the interesting scene where Salim finds out Metty has a whole family he didn't know about.  Salim begins acting out the part of the hurt, offended master, Metty that of a childish slave.  Salim reflects, "I was acting.  But there are times when we act out what we really feel, times when we cannot cope with certain emotions, and it is easier to act" (p. 106).  In this scene and others, acting is not simply lying or pretending.  It is a way to tell the truth in an indirect manner, and also a way to avoid confronting harsh truths.

            

Another interesting passage is when Salim travels to London.  He describes "acting up" the part of the "primitive" who needs to be led by Kareisha, his affectionate  and knowing wife (231).  But he actually is awed by the strange city and is in danger of getting lost if he strays too far from Kareisha's apartment.  And always after acting out his part he has to go back to his hotel to face his solitude.  This is another instance where acting becomes a peculiar mix of lying and truth-telling.

            

Other instances of acting include Ferdinand's adoption of different characters as he grows up and searches for identity, Raymond's dramatic speeches which hide insecurity about his position in the country, and the way Mahesh and Shoba pretend that everything is normal no matter what is happening in the town.

Jason - Potential A Bend In The River Essay - 2/9

For a paper I’d like to discuss how Africa, or at least the town the story is set in, is perpetually enduring cycles of death and rebirth and how this idea is echoed through the natural world, the political climate, the cycles of economic boom and bust, and that of the more abstracted idea of characters (focusing on Salim – and I guess touching on his relationships with other characters) not being able to outpace or sidestep this endless cycle, except for one, or so it appears. I’d then conclude that the cycle continues because (at least within the novel) Africans (and African) are seen as “history-less” or ahistorical so they are something that can be controlled and manipulated for the gain of one group or another (which stems from the idea that people have control over their own circumstances), which is ultimately an illusion.

Pg. 27 – discusses the city as a perpetual ruin

Pg. 211-12 – discusses the liberation army’s intend to fight off oppressors

Pg. 260 – shows how the Domain has been repurposed and become a kind of African settlement where crops are grown.

Pg. 24 – the “businessman isn’t a mathematician” quote to show the idea of becoming trapped within one’s fate, and not knowing when to get out, particularly when this option is available and not made use of.

Posts for 2/9

Pick a motif or theme that could form the basis of a critical essay on Naipaul. Such a theme should be as specific as possible. 1. It could be Naipaul's treatment of women; 2. representations of the flora in the text; 3. some aspect of Naipaul's style, such as the use of comedy - or 4. the changing narrative voices; 5. the theme of history; 6. a character study of Salim in relation to his concept of masculinity - 7. or in relation to his search for the exotic or unfamiliar (the exotic seems to turn into the familiar for him and vice versa)  - 8. or in relation to his search for identity; 9. it could be about the representations - positive of negative - of being African or Africa as a concept; 10. it could relate the book to some historical event - it should be one that precedes the writing of the book and may have influenced the story; 11. it could be about the representation of South Asians in the book; 12. about the relationship between political and social power and education. 12. symbolism of ships and waterways? 13. the concept of "always something new" in relation to Africa; 14. the concept of abstract math and practical math? 15.


You may pick your own topic. It should be something you can cover in the length of a midterm paper. There's much more danger that it would be too large rather than too small. Whatever you discuss, you must connect it to the overall themes of the book - for instance, how does the presentation of the natural world fit with the book's larger themes and philosophy.


For this post, choose a theme and pick four passages from the book that relate to this theme. You don't have to quote the passages in full, but it should be clear which ones you mean. This is the first step towards writing the paper, since your analysis would be built around significant quotes.

I strongly suggest you begin reading Midnight's Children as soon as possible. Since this is a long book, you must not get behind. It is strikingly different from A Bend in the River.

Nick - 2/7 - Naipual

This is a novel about imprisonment. Not only how the past consciously shapes
ones future, "we had been made by the place we had grown up"(142), but also
of a Hindu kharmic past. As the details of past experience enlighten
themselves to te reader, VIA naipauls "rock down a hill" style along which
is also reminiscent of a more proverbial concrete style. As the subconscious
past enlighten itself into the reader/characters consciousness, we unlike in
a Dickens novel, do not see the light at the nd of the tunnel instead we see
the tunnel transform into another tunnel which later is proven no better nor
no worse. The novel relies not on the betterment of a post  colonial
society, but instead the cyclic nature of the outsider and their reluctance
for acceptance from the world around them, the only way to "integrate" is to
stagnate, and like naipauls writing style become known, eventually.

Anna - Naipaul- 2/7/11

I finished the book and it left a sort of bitter taste in my mouth. I am interested in two things, the speed of the novel and how it blossoms (sorry to use this word, maybe "expands"...) and Naipaul’s clever portrayal of Salim (manipulative grasp on readers conception). I respected Salim very much at the beginning of the novel, I think I wrote something to that effect on the blog- but I was conflating the writer with the narrator. At the end of the book I think Salim is despicable, human, but penned in, not so wise and I dislike the sexual depictions throughout the book (because of their violent cast), but I am curious about Naipaul and who he imagines his readers to be. I was very intrigued by his style, his ideas and his wit, but I must say after finishing the book I feel a bit distanced, like someone had perhaps spit on me. This is, I imagine actually the benefit of effective writing, but I keep stumbling across "shocking" writing and it has started to make me wonder about its values, what the leading forces are behind it. I don’t know what to make of it until I read another Naipaul.

Jane- Naipaul- 2/7/2011

"All my energy and mind were devoted to that new end of winning the person. All my satisfactions lay in that direction; and the new kind of fulfillment, continuously new" (Naipaul, 175).

The passage wherein Salim recounts his first sexual encounter with Yvette is particularly striking as it is the first time we see the narrator break away from his usual, matter-of-fact, slightly indifferent outlook. The ardor with which Salim describes the experience I believe speaks to the idea that Salim as a moralist, particularly a sexual moralist, in search of purity. The feelings of excitement he once felt toward bought-sex turned into an attitude of boredom and eventual self-loathing. Salim undergoes a nearly euphoric experience with Yvette, who little is mentioned of during the act. Here his ennui is utterly reversed and the need to dominate Yvette overwhelms him to the point of becoming violent- a means of liberating him from the repression and self-hatred he had felt thus far.

Karol - Bend in The River -02/07

I wanted to post again because so much of this text deals with economics. Especially, in the framework of hyperinflation in decolonized Africa. "That was two hundred Francs, nearly six hundred dollars..." (For a cofee and piece cheese on bread. "Prices have dropped twenty-five percent, and interest rates have risen from twelve percent to twenty and even twenty -four percent." (235) Naipul does provides a very ground level vantage point of post-colonial Africa but I'm not sure its fair to presented in this limited light because at times it infers that this is the end result of poor uneducated Affrican leadership. The truth is these problems come as a result of inter-generational disenfranchisement over what we call colonialism but could be called an occupation. Here are some articles on African hyper-inflation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4665854.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html

Rachel - Naipaul, 2/7

On page 185, Naipaul writes about the President, or "the Big Man," who incarnates the ideal of "masculine" political power:

"But now there remained a link with him [The President]: the sense of his power as a personal thing, to which we were all attached with strings, which he might pull or let dangle.  That was something I had never felt before. "  There is an almost patriarchal flavor to this text.  The Big Man (phallic choice of words, by the way) exerts his perceived importance on the general populous, while still claiming to care for the common man.


This underlines his desire to bring (Uganda?  Where are we now??) back to "African democracy and socialism."   He uses his mother's alleged job as a hotel maid to justify the purity of this claim.  Eventually he even disposes the Youth Guard, "[stripping] them of power and jobs," leaving them "humiliated and anguished men of the region."


But how does a humiliated and anguished man" act?  Naipaul writes that the Youth Guard react by treating the people they were supposed to police in a cruel, resentful manner, which is revealed on page 212.  But what does this say in the bigger context of the book?  I'm not sure, but if Fundamentals of Cognitive Psych at Lang taught me anything, it's that insecure men usually need to compensate.  (By bullying their kids, beating their wives...or, as George Carlin, Patron Saint of the New School, once said: "That's what all that asshole jock bullshit is all about.  That's what all that adolescent, macho, male posturing and strutting in bars and locker rooms is all about - it's called DICK FEAR...they have to compete with one another to feel better about themselves, and since war is the ultimate competition, basically men are killing each other in order to improve their self esteem."


Since the political landscape of the book is getting progressively more unstable...I would not be surprised.

Karol - Bend in The River -02/07

           The text makes a distinction between what is a personality and what is an identity. A personality is created out of reaction to circumstance. Characters like Indar wear their personalities like costumes. An identity is constructed as response to material being, a static and constant accretion of information that doesn't exist in past events or future hopefulness, it only is. Salim's self lies not his reactions to other selves but his response to and his flux displaced through them.
          When referring to Mahesh, Shoba, and Indar our narrator states: "The only friends in the town I had introduced him to were Shoba and Mahesh. They were the only people I thought he would have something in common with (b/c they were beautiful). But that hadn't worked. There was suspicion on both sides. These three people were in may ways alike- renegades, concerned with their personal beauty, finding in that the easiest form of dignity." (155)What the narrator sees as the power of their particular costumes as an aspect of identity is viewed inside of their triangle as threatening to each of their personalities. The characters are masked out of creation and out of sheer need for survival. The common thread of all their costumes, to the bewilderment of Salim, is that these personalities are created and not innate. Their suspicion towards each other is rooted in their distrust set upon while grappling with their own identities that aren't defined outside of reaction to environment.
          Salim is obsessed with whiteness of Yvette's skin which becomes a symbol of Salim's judgmental progression over her. He also appears to have a foot fetish but that could be intended to symbolize that he is always looking down in her presence. Overall, the author treats beauty as commodity. Interestingly enough, their foreignness becomes their commodity. The characters use beauty at first as currency until it consumes them. Salim seems to be using their beauty as currency to define himself. The selflessness he gains through Yvette is fleeting and illusory since his love for her involves a selfish favoritism for her and her alone. Here is what Zizek says on the selfishness of love:

Joseph-Naipaul-2/7/2011

1. The water hyacinth is a claustrophobic plant, and it is represented as such in 'A Bend in the River'. The hyacinth is invasive: It will cover bodies of water entirely, block sunlight from reaching plants, kill animals, etc. In "A Bend In The River", the water hyacinths are a symbol of birth, gradual disintegration, and inevitable death.

The first time Naipul introduces us to the hyacinth, he outlines its progessively ominous effects on the area: "Always, sailing up from the south, from beyond the bend in the river, were clumps of water hyacinths, dark floating islands on the dark river, bobbing over the rapids. It was as if rain and river were tearing away bush from the heart of the continent and floating it down to the ocean, incalculable miles away. But the water hyancinth was the fruit of the river alone". The hyacinths have an air of "the new" to the locals, but they are looked upon as an enemy. There is certainly an interior sense of foreboding to match the physical manifestations.

Later on, the hyacinths become a way to muddle and clot a vision of older times. Father Huismans is killed, and his killers decide to make a show of their conquest. The narrator remarks: "His death need never have been discovered;he could have easily have been buried somewhere in the bush. But the people who killed him wanted the fact to be known. His body was put in a dugout, and the dugout drifted down the main river until it caught against the bank in a tangle of water hyacinths.He was buried quickly, with the minimum of ceremony". Salim believes that Father Huismans purity and naivete played a role in his demise,

The narrator later sates that "little was said about the way he died", and he laments for the loss of a man he feels was a wealth of knowledge. However, in keeping with the "topography of the void" that characterizes Naipual's writing, the narrator quickly states that we cannot remain in a "questioning mood for long". The river must keep flowing, and the hyacinths cannot be stopped from encroaching further. This echoes the kind of pragmatic attitude that Naipaul exhibits from the very first line.

Water hyacinths are mentioned twice at the very end of the novel, when Salim returns and is now a runaway on a steamer bound for nowhere. When Salim first notices the progress of the town, he admires the steamers and their easily flowing transit. They are a nice contrast to the dugouts. However, by the conclusion of the novel, the hyacinths have overtaken the river, and the steamer is pathetic(made even more so by the first class cabin). Naipaul writes:

"In this light the silhouettes of the dugouts and the people in them were blurred,not sharp. But these dugouts,when we came to them, had no produce to sell. They were desperate only to be tied up to the steamer. They were in flight from the riverbanks. They jammed and jostled against the sides of the steamer and the barge, and many were swamped. Water hyacinths pushed up the narrow space between the steamer and the barge. We went on. Darkness fell."

And later....

"At the time what we saw was the steamer searchlight, playing on the riverbank, playing on the passenger barge, which had snapped loose and was drifting at an angle through the water hyacinths at the edge of the river. The searchlight lit up the barge passengers, who,behind bars and wire guards, as yet scarcely seemed to understand that they were adrift."

Like many of the characters, these barge passengers don't seem to find their identity, or even notice that it is missing. The hyacinths have become too pervasive.

Hannah - Naipaul - 2/7/2011

4. Salim's relationships to several characters changes as the book goes on. It seems that his perceptions of Metty, Ferdinand, Indar and Yvette were premature at first, but as he spends more time with them and closely examines each person, Salim begins to see another side to them, for better or for worse. Metty was an annoyance to Salim in the beginning and was seen as concerned only with himself, but Salim begins to notice Metty's sadness and awareness of his own place away from the coast. Salim sees Metty more as an equal rather than a servant, not hiding certain things, such as his affair with Yvette.

As with Metty, Ferdinand was initially viewed as a burden to Salim and as a stubborn boy with a strong will to do whatever he wanted without thinking about consequences. Throughout the years, Ferdinand has taken on responsibilities and has been following rules. On page 165, he tells Salim he tipped the purser too much because the purser didn't use 'citoyen' to address the group. When Indar first came to Salim, Salim saw Indar as he had seen him years before: as an educated man with style. But he reassessed his views on Indar when he heard his story and saw that Indar has faced many challenges to preserve his dignity and keeps up a facade in order to feel like what he was "supposed" to be. When Salim met Yvette, he couldn't stop thinking about how intellectual and beautiful she was and soon became obsessed with her. But after sleeping with her and getting to know her, he finds out she isn't happy with her marriage or where her life is heading. She feels her life is "fluid" (pg 190) and Salim senses that she is anxious most of the time.


This shows that Salim is quick to make impressions about people, but doesn't push them away when he learns about their flaws and true intentions. He appears to be selective about who he truly cares about and is protective. 

Jason- Naipaul- 2/7

            3. Raymond position as a historian seems to become somewhat ironic as the novel progresses. Initially, Salim portrays, or at least conceives, of Raymond as a direct link to the events and past of the development of the country’s “new situation” with the Big Man. Because of this, Raymond seems to be a kind of primary source for historical recording of the country. Raymond’s presence in Africa prior to independence seems to color him as a kind of authentic historical link from the region’s past. So it would seem that he would be an authentic and truthful chronicler of the country’s changes. Though Salim begins to recognize later on that Raymond is very much disconnected from Africa. It becomes clear that Raymond’s favor with the Big Man is diminishing by the day and that in the few articles he’s managed to publish, it seems Raymond only grasps the surface of what he sees. His viewpoint is based on newspaper reports, letters, and archives and not first hand accounts. Salim mentions at one point that Raymond misses the mark almost entirely in one article and that even someone like Metty would have had a more accurate or insightful few words to say. The implication seems to be that knowledge, which would be common to any African, is completely lost on Raymond. Given this, and Raymond’s apparently undying loyalty to the Big Man, the opening novel would seem to paint Raymond as an inactive figure, someone who is allowing himself to become nothing. The notion of history, memory, and lies as European seems to enter the equation in that Raymond is attempting to chronicle the progress of a “nation” that does not measure itself in terms of progress. Many parts of Africa, particularly the bush, are described as, or at least implied to be, unchanged. The bush perpetually reclaims spaces that were either political, commercial, residential, etc. and wipes the slate clean. In this sense, a sense of “history” doesn’t really factor in to a conception of Africa since things have basically stayed constant and just “carried on” as they always have. A “history” of Africa would then be a kind of European construct, or lie, that couldn’t entirely conform to or accurately portray/capture the area’s nature.

Will - Naipaul - 2/7

6.  Salim's first sexual experience with Yvette is a moment of enlightenment.  Previously knowing only the pleasures of prostitues, he transforms into a "new self" (176) by having sex with a woman he actually cares about. By having sex with Yvette, Salim begins engaging with the world on more than just a surface level.  He begins engaging the world on a more abstract/spiritual level.  Salim sees Yvette not as a body he can buy, but as a person he must win.

Central to the moment is the shift of Salim's gaze.  He moves from the blind "self-regard" of brothel fantasies, to "a constant looking outward from myself" (175).  During the sex act he is continually looking at Yvette's body, "avoiding crushing the body with my own, avoiding that obliteration of sight and touch" (175).  The nakedness of Yvette's body takes on the aspect of a revealed truth, a "revelation of woman's form" (175).  Salim sees Yvette's body as perfect because he wishes to "win the possessor of that body."  If the exterior reveals the interior, then for Salim Yvette's perfect body reveals her perfect spirit.

Complicating matters is that as their sex continues it becomes "full of deliberate brutality" (176).  It is a prelude to a relationship that becomes disturbingly co-dependent as the book continues.

Naipaul - 2/7/11 - third assignment questions

1. By now there have been numerous mentions of water hyacinths. What is the significance of this detail? Find several mentions and consider the context, beginning with the first one, on p. 46. 2. One of the most persistent dualities in the book is that between the ordinary and the exotic. Consider the passage on 96 in which Salim reflects that "we had been ordinary - now they (the Africans) were ordinary." On 129, dancing with Yvette: "I never wanted to be ordinary again." But later he finds her ordinary, visiting her house. Comment on these shifts from exotic to ordinary and their significance to the politics of the book. 3. Let's go back to Raymond's speech about the elusiveness of truth on p. 130. Raymond is a historian, but is he a truthful one? Can you relate the figure of Raymond to the opening of the novel and the comments that history and memory as well as lies are European? 4. Can you find a pattern in Salim's relationship to characters about whom he cares - Metty, Ferdinand, Indar, Yvette? How does he feel about them initially? How does his view of each one change? Is there a clue here to his character? 5. Another example of Salim's shifting opinions can be found in his relationship with Yvette. Originally, she is the antidote to the "brothel" pleasures to which he has become accustomed. But later, when she kisses his trousers and at other times, he begins to view her as similar to the "brothel" women. Is Salim a sexual moralist looking for purity? If not, then how do you interpret his attitude? 6. Salim's first sexual encounter with Yvette on pages 174-176 is presented as a major revelation for him. The paragraph beginning "Women make up half of the world..." is particularly striking. With the description in mind, interpret the significance of this event for Salim. Why is this new type of relationship so important to him? 7. On p. 148 Indar discusses an episode during which he feels his masculine pride has been injured. The question of masculinity comes up again for Salim in relation to Mahesh and his excessive devotion to Shoba. He sees Mahesh's weakness echoed in his own excessive devotion to Yvette. How does the theme of injured manliness relate to the larger political themes of the book? 8. Throughout the book Salim has been an observer or outsider, often a mentor to young men, a victim of his own faithfulness. In the later part of the novel, he appears to be more involved, particularly through his affair with Yvette. Has he become more "European," like Nazruddin, or is he as "African" as ever? Or are these distinctions no longer meaningful? Support your answer with reasons. 9. Is beauty a form of power in this book? Mahesh and Shoba are concerned with beauty; Metty benefits, in the short term, from his handsomeness; Indar is concerned with stylishness; and Yvette is notable for her beauty. What is the author's attitude towards concern with appearances - in men and women? 10. Yvette, when she tells the story of her marriage (187-189), clearly feels that she made a foolish decision. Consider here character and her reasons for becoming involved with Salim (does she have any reasons)? Is Naipaul's portrait of her sympathetic? Is she disappointed with Raymond's failures... or for some other reason? 11. Most characters with some exceptions - Nazruddin and Ferdinand - seem to be disappointed in the story. How would you interpret this pattern of dashed hopes as part of Naipaul's vision? What is different about those who seem to fare better? How are the disappointed characters flawed? Discuss a few characters specifically. 12. Consider the description of Ferdinand's departure on the steamer. How does the steamer show changing times - or things staying much the same - in postcolonial times? It's appearance in the story seems jarring - is it a symbol of some sort?

Rachel - 2/2 - Naipaul

I'm not sure how to create a post to this blog (as opposed to a comment.) Can we discuss this in class tomorrow?

ANYWAY! As for the response, I decided to do #1 - an imitation of Naipaul's literary style. While using Salim as a narrator, Naipaul highlights the use of periodic sentences. For example, take a look at the first paragraph of section II. (Page 85.) It describes an ant colony matter-of-factly, without any subjective comment on it. The description is short. However, this striking, small image is really symbolic of the state of modern-day Africa, and that's the beauty of his text.

What I'm about to write is a similar description of the coffees available at The Lang Cafe...but it's also a symbol for how I view The New School as a whole. In the style of Naipaul:


"The room is simple. The coffees in it are not; they are styled to suit the taste of Whole Foods shoppers and Park Slope residents. Joy once told me, in her Jamacian accent, that the beans are imported from around the world. Roast varies with region, she said.

The sticker labels hugging the fat tanks of coffee are stamped with buzzwords like "fair trade," "organic," and "single source." They have the dark aroma of their respective regions. People crowd around the tanks, observing the eccentricity, the variety of flavor. Almost like they were about to take photos: 'look what I saw today.'"


It's coffee! It's Naipaul! It's NEW SCHOOL!

Anna - Naipaul- 2/2/11

We had discussed in class that it is a part of V.s. Naipaul’s style to withhold some of the most crucial details until he makes the illusion that he has just gotten around to telling. An example of this being the Salim’s shop and the common perception the reader assumes for a shop to have shelves until the author admits all the merchandise is on the floor. Well, the author has reliably continued to play with us in this way. In a very big way. The narrator, Salim, in this second part, has been revealed to be less stable than previously mentioned, as he gets upset for the first time (Metty becoming a “family man” to someone else's family, at first having never seen Salim’s emotions, I wonder how this could even make him so upset) he is thrown off his balance for the first time (Imar his visor belonging more permanently to the town than he has in the past eight years. It is most shocking to me, however to read about Salim at the Domain party, were he appears to be a great innocent bore, and sexually creepy. Whereas before I had a respect for his dutiful conception of “just carrying on like ants” it is made clear he knew nothing else. It was not a choice for him to be so simple but he knew nothing else. Something about the way he was depicted as a seeker in the beginning of the book (his choice to move, his refusal of the girl) I imagined he had some sort of calling to find out, but I imagined he was less innocent in his decisions and knowledge, and it is either my misreading, or something to do with V.S. N’s style?

(I apologize for posting late, I had forgotten the 9pm due date!)

Jane- Naipaul- 2/1/2011

:... I doubt whether the workmen who made this stuff- In Europe and the United States and perhaps nowadays Japan- had any idea of what their products were used for" (Naipaul, 40). "
Earlier in the narrative- as the town is in a state of disarray- Naipaul adopts a kind of irony when writing how these technically advanced cultures were creating products to be used in most primitive ways by the Africans buying them. Mashesh's proposed business scheme involving importing a Japanese appliance to carve wooden ice cream spoons seems indicative of the new shift in the attitude toward trade and western products as the town began to flourish- though he seems to be less interested in selling ice cream as a business venture and more taken with the idea of carving a living out of using these intricately modern, western machines.

Jason- 2/2/11 -Naipaul

11. Mahesh’s Bigburger shop stood out to me as a symbol for the outsider as a kind of parasite feeding off a host organism. Clearly, Mahesh is (or at least tries frequently) to be as opportunistic. Once he lands the Bigburger deal, it seems his efforts have paid off, though up until that moment Mahesh had tried to funnel money his way by whatever means he was capable of engaging in, whether it be a camera business or a customizable wooden plaque business. Most of his ideas consist of “feeding” off other industries; the cameras were mainly intended for the tourists who never seemed to come to the area, and the plaques for the van der Weyden hotel. But what made the Bigburger franchise a success for Mahesh was the coupling of the restaurant’s attractiveness to the van der Weyden’s visitors across the road with the African officials and army members interest in the place for its “décor and modernity” and the fact that Mahesh had made a point to make his houseboy, Ildephonse, a manager, to attract local Africans. The point seems to be that the outsider’s relationship to Africa is necessarily parasitic, in this case, in relation to the exchange of money. It is added later that Salim notices in the Bigburger, and in other establishments with an African staff, that once the proprietor is not around the staff becomes “vacant,” that they were “acting” and could remove themselves spiritually from their jobs. The implication seemed to be that though the Africans purposely disconnect themselves form their surroundings, they nevertheless engage in the parasitic relationship. Perhaps this is because both sides feel they are “putting one over” the over. Still, on page 99 Mahesh flat-out states that he’s a numbers watcher (he’s talking about Bigburger), “Noimon offered me two million. But you know Noimon. When he offers two, you know it’s worth four.” Given this statement, it’s likely Mahesh has only stumbled blindly into this kind of success and, further, his parasitic relationship to the country and people who he engages with is more or less beyond his understanding.

Karol - Bend in The River -02/02

Indar, during his long speech in chapter 9, describes the Domain as a "construct," but adds "all men live in constructs." Discuss the significance of the Domain as a comment on development in postcolonial Africa.

        Salim is attracted to Indar because of his style. To Salim there is a gloss or patina to him that is unidentifiable to him but this particular speech (150) suggests that Indar's world view adopts life as a game to either be won or lost. The keynote of his story happens after this when he realizes London was built by men. Upon this realization he goes into a tirade on manhood (152). The nexus becomes that the men who built these things, things that he once saw as larger then life, are also the men who stole his manhood.
        Even though, I find this kind of machismo troubling the perceived symbols of castration and emasculation seem to be thematic to this self awareness. An obsession with dominance in Indar's case manifests as the belief that everything is a "construct" ie mailable and easy to manipulate once one figures out how that construct operates.  Sequentially, his next step is join a bohemian acting troupe where he learns how to be things that he doesn't want to be.
       The gloss that Salim feels around Indar is absurdly more of a cheap flashiness then a high end gloss.  The "construct" of the Domain, to him, acts a mere court to glamor. Even more so because of the weak leadership of the president whose construct it is. According to him leadership, notwithstanding slaves, is that at its best it can evoke or reclaim manhood.

Will - Naipaul - 2/2

6.  We get a few clues in the text as to the nature of this new "Africa of words and ideas."  The first is when Salim sits in on a lecture given by his friend Indar.  Indar is drawn as a socratic philosopher figure:  "he tried to get the young men to examine the words they were using" (p. 121).  Indar seems wise, yet he also does little but obfuscate questions.  It is unclear what "ideas" Indar, the new Africa, and the new president are espousing, but the ambiguity may be the point.

            This is illustrated in the party Salim attends, where he meets Raymond and Yvette.  Raymond describes the president as very open minded, hungry for ideas.  "He feels that all ideas can be made to serve the cause" (p.134).  The president's self-made image is both modern and in touch with tribal roots, a soldier and a peace-maker, a man from the bush and one at the highest reaches of society, conservative and revolutionary, in touch with the past and ready to move forward.  The president uses whatever ideology is politically or economically viable at the moment; his hunger is constantly in need of new ideas to digest and repurpose. 

            In constructing the new Africa, the president is establishing a unified national identity.  The picture of the president, seemingly hanging in every room of every building, is symbolically "a picture of all Africans" (p. 134).  This ignores tribal and religious differences which are highlighted elsewhere in the novel.  This nationalism may not be as inclusive as it seems.  Would Metty, a person of mixed race and self-proclaimed former "slave," fit into this "picture of all Africans"?  The type of ideological rhetoric the new president engages in may too easily devolve into simple lies, like the European colonials who had "both the slaves and the statues" (p. 17).