Salman Rushdie

Forum

Pages: 1 2 3
ahem

>>By dionysus   (Thursday, 13 Nov 2003 02:40)



you are right that the term postcolonial is coined by the west. but on a larger scale we may say that all labelling process depends heavily on othering - and not surprisingly the othering process is voiced by the one who has the "upper hand". how we perceive of the world is , well, unfortunately, bound to the limits drawn by the western ideology.
in terms of the problematic position of the term postcolonial, some critics say that it is inappropriate a term because it indicates that ,seemingly, colonization is over, however, on a different layer, it continues and postcolonial is the product and the proof of that continuity.
as far as i understand of Rushdie's works, this is just the point he is making (Saleem's father is the personification of this idea)
anyway i believe that all utterances are to some extend "political" no escape from it sorry :))

>>By papatya   (Thursday, 13 Nov 2003 09:08)



there is no escape. But I speak here not as a researcher (this side of me agrees with you and sees the value of such terms), but i speak here as a writer, an indian living in a white society, dreaming "white" dreams...trying to be considered as a writer with ideas, but not to be considered as an idea of the fantasies of the West. seen from this angle, rushdie's work takes on a different meaning...to say there is no escape is to begin the process of the deterioration of the artistic sensibility...that is rushdie's poin in East, West where he says he is the Comma. The book title should be articulated as east Comma West.

>>By dionysus   (Thursday, 13 Nov 2003 10:48)



Rushdie's ontological task, as a writer, is to find that middle ground, to mark one's own position from which to address the forces of desire and seduction that are manifest in terms like postcoloniality ahnd so on...the idea of post-coloniality is the product, I believe, of modernity (i decline the prefix post-). It stems from man's need to systematise in order to apprehend the world.

If it is argued that "on a different layer, it continues and postcolonial is the product and the proof of that continuity," it merely suggests modern man, like Descartes has theorised reality into existence. The experience of the ordinary post-colonial man transcends theory and, as de certeau says, unarticulateable and unnameable. Homi Bhabha, of course, would argue that this so called Unnameable Other is the Hybrid Other, the being in liminal space, the product of a confined space. The Hybrid nature of the liminal man is subject to the "technologies of domination and definition" to echoe Foucault. Yet, Frantz Fanon, the Martinican psychoanalyst and participant in the Algerian revolution, finds in this "defined " space an agency of empowerment.

Fanon argues that the locale of hybridity is a creative locale, one that tries to rise like the phoenix out of the flames of political categorisation (the postcolonial school and the subsidiary school of vanquished scholars in the face of postcoloniality). This is Rushdie's strength. he screams to be taken as a writer, as a human being, as a thinker, but we constantly push him back to fit our neat little systems..

>>By dionysus   (Thursday, 13 Nov 2003 11:22)



This is depressing. Foucault is a curse!!! and if papatya is correct, then I am nothing but a product of the post-colonial continuity. I think I shall write a novel now...:))

>>By dionysus   (Thursday, 13 Nov 2003 11:51)



interesting discourse... but of course rushdie is a post-colonial writer. his greatest works are informed by the course of his homeland through history. what is midnight's children but an exploration of india's past (both recent and ancient) and a meditation on it's future.
to suggest that the term post-colonial implies some imbalance of power is moot; of course it does. the post-colonial is to me the period of transition between one form of slavery and another. the issue here is not whether post-colonial is the correct term for rushdie, the question is where do we stand now?
like dionysus, i'm an indian man living in a white world. my ire is raised by the idea that the occupation of north america is over. of course, from a white standpoint it is, and the truth is such - we all live here together now. but to say that the colonization of indian people in north america is over is insulting.
so to me the issue is not what tradition rushdie falls into, or what semiological and epistimological texts ha can be found in; the issue is what do his words build in your minds eye? what visions of hope or terror does he create?
do his books breathe fire? that's all that matters.

>>By jakey   (Friday, 14 Nov 2003 02:53)



opps am i sounding like too boring an academician (i humbly accept the titre :>) ? i really did not want to categorize him as such an such at the expense of underestimating the creative ability of Rushdie , it seems i am inflicted with the almost obssesive urge to classify him :))
anyway i am not an indian so i may not understand what Rushdie is up to do as much as an indian person can. but my point is his acceptance to the canon of English literature is "funny" in that he is accepted as a writer of English literature while at the same time what he is doing is to criticize or reflect outcome of the British imperialism
i cannot say i am a westerner so if there is someone who is so maybe s/he can help me see another perspective on Rushdie's works.

>>By papatya   (Friday, 14 Nov 2003 10:18)



and dionysus, i am looking forward to reading your novel i believe it will be and interesting experience for you to write and an equally interesting experience for us the readers to read it :))
take care

>>By papatya   (Friday, 14 Nov 2003 10:21)



Well, as a western whitey who abhors critical theory (I'm sorry, but it just seems to leech all of the emotional content of a text; or worse, to categorize, over-politicize, and cheapen a creative product. There's only so many contexts that a piece of literature can be seen in before the theorist is either: A.)Projecting their own objective stance on the work and then rationalizing it with a lot of impenetrable droning or B.) Attempting to fit disparate texts into an overly constrictive, overly simplistic, and wholly too dogmatic system. If every damn theorist didn't think that their theoretical flavor of the month was THE framework for viewing the world, then I might have more tolerance. As it is y'all have made me dogmatic myself, and I grit my teeth in annoyance.
As a side note, it's funny to me that all these postmodern acolytes of theory decry that anything should or can be categorized, and then spend paragraph upon paragraph attempting to categorize what they just labelled as the un-categorizable. Plus, there are no worse writers on the face of this planet, and I include supermarket circular writers, than literary theorists.) I can say this confidently about Rushdie: he is as close to an unparalleled storyteller as this generation has seen (barring, just maybe, Stephen King). Yes, I don't deny that many of his novels lend themselves to politicization and theorizing. But there's a reason that Rushdie is a household name in a way that Said or Bhabha will never achieve: his work resonates on far wider scale than the abstract cerebral. Yes, you say that theory actually effects all ranges of humanity, but we're not talking Darwin here. We're talking about the work of fantastically bright, but closeted and narrow-sighted academic elites. By focusing in on Rushdie's multicultural chic topicality, you deny his unbounded imagination and his narrative genius.
Do I totally agree with everything I've just said. No. Do I think I'm right? Hardly. But I find, too often, discussions of literature devolve into either emotion-laden hokum (see Oprah's Book Club -though I do think it did wonders for stirring greater interest in books) or terminology-laden theory hell (see above).
This strain of discussion, due to the aforementioned Verses, managed to devolve into a third strain of Politico-Religious Bully Pulpitry. With these priveleged, western eyes I regard people who find a work of fiction to be so phenomally miscreant as to warrant the author's death as a combination of somewhat amusing and terribly upsetting.

>>By Ortho Stice   (Saturday, 20 Dec 2003 00:24)



Hello! Can anybody tell me where in Net I may find Rushdie's books for free?

>>By LIRA   (Saturday, 20 Dec 2003 16:49)



Whenever i read or hear disparaging views on this novel from the muslim community, i can't help but hang my head and sigh. The Satanic Verses is called a masterpiece, and i cannot disagree with the statement just because it pokes fun at islam. If what Mr. Rushdie has done is "blasphamous", then it is him who will face God on judgement day for that sin, not you, and i am very tired of hearing this useless prattle about fatwas and the like. Such actions not only show a lack of intelligence, but of acceptance of the opinions of others.

>>By Mahli   (Monday, 12 Jan 2004 20:08)



well, people of authority- i mean islamic authorities - are attacking Rushdie because Rushdie is attacking their logos of meaning, which is religion. the funny thing is by doing so they make people wonder about Rushdie and people begin reading him. on the other hand some people here in Turkey backs up Rushdie not because they have ever read a line by him but because he is, they think, is against religion. this is equally bad and far from being intellectual
the author gets more interest than his works hmmm

>>By papatya   (Monday, 12 Jan 2004 21:27)



I have just arrived on this page digressing from a webhunt I was engaged in. I thought I might comment. The fanatical views that begin this discussion do not merit comment. Later comments get more interesting in an academic way. I particularly enjoyed Dionysius's comments -- s/he seems well informed in the writings of McClintock and Bhabha. Papatya is naive, perhaps young -- a school going teenager perhaps? If so, thinking well. I would like to engage with Dionysius, but do not know how old this site is. I will check here again soon, to see if this is an ongoing discussion. 17 July 2004.

>>By brownie01   (Saturday, 17 Jul 2004 18:33)



a comment concerning what jakey said...about rushdie's work. He says it is not a question of what genre rushdie falls into, but what his words say. True, but I think what dionysus was trying to say was that how we read his words in some ways, are determined by how we approach it. If we approach narayan as a writer in india writing in english, we immediately think of a non-native speaker writing about indian things in a different language. But if we approach his work as a work among others, we see a different message emerging from his writing. Post-colonial as a term is used to shape and infkuence our reading. The conclusions one reaches as to the import of Rushdie's words are somewhat influenced by how our reading of his words are moulded..

What his words say or mean, and how it affects us depends on WHAT IS READ and WHAT THE READER WANTS TO READ. In which case, how he is pigeon-holed has some bearing. As Jacques Lacan would say, "style is the person you're talking to"

>>By Orphée   (Wednesday, 25 Aug 2004 01:24)



PLEASE, I NEED SOME IDEAS ABOUT SALMAN`S EAST WEST BOOK FOR A THESIS STETEMENT WHAT ABOUT DIO?

>>By mexican student of rushdie   (Tuesday, 14 Sep 2004 23:45)



Mexican,

you can tackle the bookm in various ways...it all depends on what binterests you about that book. remember the book is entitle East,West. Rushdie says that the 'Comma' must be read as part of the title. the 'comma' is the entity that trapped between the east and west, but the comma is also a pause, as in a sentence, we put in a comma in order to pause, or explain an idea, or introduce another idea. so, in the title east,west, the comma is not merely an additonal of an idea or identity, but is a space within which the subject/entity/individual seeks solace or respite. Somewhere between east and west, there is an anonymous space of identity.

>>By Orphée   (Sunday, 7 Nov 2004 01:05)



The discussion board is currently closed.