There is no formula for post-colonial literature. The style of literature has no template and varies drastically in content, style, and theme. Salman Rushdie’s essay, Imaginary Homelands, examines how emigration and western exposure affects literature of post-colonial India. The effect of the interactions between various juxtaposing cultures is described by Rushdie in a way that reflects a sharing of ideas, where cultures are mutually influenced by one another—a process of transcolonization. Emigrating from India and living abroad, Rushdie finds that her memories of India becomes fragmented and she is “obliged to deal in broken mirrors, some of whose fragments have been irretrievably lost” (11). However, writing from a physical distance appears to allow writers to speak openly without fear of rebuke.
I found Rushdie’s essay to be particularly pertinent, because of my own experience living abroad. While studying abroad in New Zealand—a former British colony—I enrolled in a course (or “paper” as the Kiwis might say) on New Zealand literature. During the semester, we read many novels by renowned New Zealand authors; yet, many of them were writing from abroad. I question that often arose in class discussions is what qualifies a New Zealand writer as a New Zealand writer? If a person has been living in London for more years, than they have lived in New Zealand are they still a New Zealand writer? If a person has not returned to New Zealand in decades, can they still write accurately about New Zealand? I think Rushdie addresses these questions excellently. She found that, although her memory of India remained in “fragmented shards,” she could still create her India. Through her writing, she portrayed “a version” of India “no more than one version of all the hundreds and millions of possible versions” (10). As readers, it is important to remember that stories of homelands are not historical accounts, but an ability to experience a country through another’s lens.
I also found it very interesting that India itself, in particular Bombay, is a conglomerate of many different cultures that continue to influence one another. Even before colonization, India contained distinctly different religious and social cultures living amongst one another. The country has never been without cultural contact zones. Rushdie makes this clear when she notes that, although Muslim, she “does not consider Hindu culture to be either alien from [her] or more important than the Islamic heritage” (16). This is clearly evident in Chandra’s novel, Love and Longing in Bombay. In short stories, such as Shaki, the author reveals numerous religious and sociological subcultures within Bombay. These cultures are constantly clashing and are often forced into contact, where the influence becomes irreversible. In Shakti, the marital joining of a traditional colonial and affluent Indian family, like Dolly’s, with the more westernized and modern Indian family of Shelia’s is able to appease their cultural differences. Although both cultures can not return to pre-contact, they are able to learn from one another and develop together. Rather than looking to literature to return readers to a nation’s pre-colonial roots, literature should be used as lens to reflect the dynamic process of this continuous transcolonization.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Ruthrie/Chandra
Salman Rushdie explains in his essay Imaginary Homelands, he explains the recognizes the incredibly distorting power of memory and perception. He makes the how we view our past and the homes of our youth is very much changed by our own nostalgic memories. Our perception has a similar effect on how we even view present events. Humans are creatures prone to partiality and bias. It is our nature to subconsciously fictionalize both our future and our present. This can be viewed in an interesting way in the Artha episode of Vikram Chandra’s Love and Longing in Bombay, due to the double-framing that occurs in this segment.
In Artha, the normal structure of the old Subramaniam relating a story to a group of men in a bar is slightly departed from. While that framing still occurs, another frame is also evident. Subramaniam does not begin by telling the narrative action of the story he wishes to convey, but instead first tells about meeting an old man on a train. Subramaniam then tells the group how the man told him a story, and it is in both of those frames that the real narrative action of Artha occurs. We are being told the memories, in first person, of Iqbal, as he later recalls them to a stranger he meets in transit. Taking Ruthrie’s idea of Imaginary Homelands into account (and furthermore, the statement of Ruthrie that this concept applies especially to expatriates and those who have left their homeland for some time and are now returning) its is reasonable to consider that perhaps Chandra expects the reader to take the perspective of this secondary narrator with a bit of a grain of salt in this particular segment.
Iqbal’s perception of the events were partial due to human nature, and have since been further distorted by his memory. Unlike the third person omniscient narrators of the other tales, in this one the facts we are given have been inferred by the fallible character of Iqbal. The true motivations and feelings of characters like Sandhya, Rajesh, and the less sympathetic characters of Anubhav and Vasant are relayed to us through the “broken mirror” effect of human perception and memory that Ruthrie depicts.
In Artha, the normal structure of the old Subramaniam relating a story to a group of men in a bar is slightly departed from. While that framing still occurs, another frame is also evident. Subramaniam does not begin by telling the narrative action of the story he wishes to convey, but instead first tells about meeting an old man on a train. Subramaniam then tells the group how the man told him a story, and it is in both of those frames that the real narrative action of Artha occurs. We are being told the memories, in first person, of Iqbal, as he later recalls them to a stranger he meets in transit. Taking Ruthrie’s idea of Imaginary Homelands into account (and furthermore, the statement of Ruthrie that this concept applies especially to expatriates and those who have left their homeland for some time and are now returning) its is reasonable to consider that perhaps Chandra expects the reader to take the perspective of this secondary narrator with a bit of a grain of salt in this particular segment.
Iqbal’s perception of the events were partial due to human nature, and have since been further distorted by his memory. Unlike the third person omniscient narrators of the other tales, in this one the facts we are given have been inferred by the fallible character of Iqbal. The true motivations and feelings of characters like Sandhya, Rajesh, and the less sympathetic characters of Anubhav and Vasant are relayed to us through the “broken mirror” effect of human perception and memory that Ruthrie depicts.
Ruthrie/Chandra
Salman Rushdie explains in his essay Imaginary Homelands, he explains the recognizes the incredibly distorting power of memory and perception. He makes the how we view our past and the homes of our youth is very much changed by our own nostalgic memories. Our perception has a similar effect on how we even view present events. Humans are creatures prone to partiality and bias. It is our nature to subconsciously fictionalize both our future and our present. This can be viewed in an interesting way in the Artha episode of Vikram Chandra’s Love and Longing in Bombay, due to the double-framing that occurs in this segment.
In Artha, the normal structure of the old Subramaniam relating a story to a group of men in a bar is slightly departed from. While that framing still occurs, another frame is also evident. Subramaniam does not begin by telling the narrative action of the story he wishes to convey, but instead first tells about meeting an old man on a train. Subramaniam then tells the group how the man told him a story, and it is in both of those frames that the real narrative action of Artha occurs. We are being told the memories, in first person, of Iqbal, as he later recalls them to a stranger he meets in transit. Taking Ruthrie’s idea of Imaginary Homelands into account (and furthermore, the statement of Ruthrie that this concept applies especially to expatriates and those who have left their homeland for some time and are now returning) its is reasonable to consider that perhaps Chandra expects the reader to take the perspective of this secondary narrator with a bit of a grain of salt in this particular segment.
Iqbal’s perception of the events were partial due to human nature, and have since been further distorted by his memory. Unlike the third person omniscient narrators of the other tales, in this one the facts we are given have been inferred by the fallible character of Iqbal. The true motivations and feelings of characters like Sandhya, Rajesh, and the less sympathetic characters of Anubhav and Vasant are relayed to us through the “broken mirror” effect of human perception and memory that Ruthrie depicts.
In Artha, the normal structure of the old Subramaniam relating a story to a group of men in a bar is slightly departed from. While that framing still occurs, another frame is also evident. Subramaniam does not begin by telling the narrative action of the story he wishes to convey, but instead first tells about meeting an old man on a train. Subramaniam then tells the group how the man told him a story, and it is in both of those frames that the real narrative action of Artha occurs. We are being told the memories, in first person, of Iqbal, as he later recalls them to a stranger he meets in transit. Taking Ruthrie’s idea of Imaginary Homelands into account (and furthermore, the statement of Ruthrie that this concept applies especially to expatriates and those who have left their homeland for some time and are now returning) its is reasonable to consider that perhaps Chandra expects the reader to take the perspective of this secondary narrator with a bit of a grain of salt in this particular segment.
Iqbal’s perception of the events were partial due to human nature, and have since been further distorted by his memory. Unlike the third person omniscient narrators of the other tales, in this one the facts we are given have been inferred by the fallible character of Iqbal. The true motivations and feelings of characters like Sandhya, Rajesh, and the less sympathetic characters of Anubhav and Vasant are relayed to us through the “broken mirror” effect of human perception and memory that Ruthrie depicts.
Far Away
Today, was a typical Bryan Doscher day. I woke up completely unalert, turned off my alarm (Which was muted) and tried to save myself from being late to class utterly unsuccessfully. I sat through class panting and sweaty from the sprint there, and spoke every so often in horrible form unable to present my own arguemtn with any sort of lucidity. I then fell asleep on my couch about thirty seconds after reading "Imaginary Homelands", and was then forced to sprint to St.Mary's so as not to be late for service... which I then also sat through sweaty and panting.
On the other hand, however I got to meet the three students that I will be working with throughout the semester at Homework Help. Eric, Chris, and Sidney in fifth, eighth and second grades respectively. Eric is very bright and personable. He has fantastic manners and I'm pretty sure he thanked me ten or twelve times and said goodbye just as many. Chris is very tall and lanky. He seems popular and knows something about everyone, like the epicenter of middle school gossip. Sidney is adorable, she is in second grade but she doesn't look young. I was shocked by her features she looks like a shrunken eighteen year old; her eyes, her cheeks, her smile she looked so mature.
I was being the good guy today, I wanted to get to know what they were like so that we could have some sort of relationship during my time there, and I find it very easy to relate to the guys, but Sidney is very reserved and completely immune to my 'charm' (yes I'm delusional). We spoke of school; a conversation sparked by Chris' impending move to high school, and Eric's jump to middle school. The conversation struck me wildly appropriate after reading 'Imaginary Homelands' and I found myself completely enveloped in their school drama. Chris looks me dead int eh face and says "Believe me, middle school goes fast!". What a character! As if I've never been there, but the point is how it relates to Rushdie's presentation of memory and the homeland. Those memories seem so far away. Like Chris was telling me, it went so fast. Time moves so slowly, even if you run through it but sometimes you turn around and two years ago seems like yesterday, or three years ago feels like another lifetime.
I particularly connected to two sections of the piece, in relation to the kids stories. Eric is in the fifth grade, about to make the transition into middle school and I can barely remember what it was like sitting in my classroom. the details, the most insignificant details, end up carrying the weight of your memory. You can connect the dots from the pieces, as Rushdie says, and reconstruct your past. I can't necessarily slip into memory but if I piece it together I can just understand what it feels to take that step into the sixth grade, and how much it meant to me. Second, was the notion of a monochromatic image in memory. I'm not sure if my memories are black and white, but I can assure you the colors aren't correct if I try to figure them out. They are just so far away, they're ii another world but sitting at a table with a second, fifth, and eighth grader threw me for a loop. Here I am trying to connect with three kids, trying to convince them that I understand who they are, where they're from, where they're going, and where their minds are at when my days of second, eighth and fifth grade are black and white and so far away.
On the other hand, however I got to meet the three students that I will be working with throughout the semester at Homework Help. Eric, Chris, and Sidney in fifth, eighth and second grades respectively. Eric is very bright and personable. He has fantastic manners and I'm pretty sure he thanked me ten or twelve times and said goodbye just as many. Chris is very tall and lanky. He seems popular and knows something about everyone, like the epicenter of middle school gossip. Sidney is adorable, she is in second grade but she doesn't look young. I was shocked by her features she looks like a shrunken eighteen year old; her eyes, her cheeks, her smile she looked so mature.
I was being the good guy today, I wanted to get to know what they were like so that we could have some sort of relationship during my time there, and I find it very easy to relate to the guys, but Sidney is very reserved and completely immune to my 'charm' (yes I'm delusional). We spoke of school; a conversation sparked by Chris' impending move to high school, and Eric's jump to middle school. The conversation struck me wildly appropriate after reading 'Imaginary Homelands' and I found myself completely enveloped in their school drama. Chris looks me dead int eh face and says "Believe me, middle school goes fast!". What a character! As if I've never been there, but the point is how it relates to Rushdie's presentation of memory and the homeland. Those memories seem so far away. Like Chris was telling me, it went so fast. Time moves so slowly, even if you run through it but sometimes you turn around and two years ago seems like yesterday, or three years ago feels like another lifetime.
I particularly connected to two sections of the piece, in relation to the kids stories. Eric is in the fifth grade, about to make the transition into middle school and I can barely remember what it was like sitting in my classroom. the details, the most insignificant details, end up carrying the weight of your memory. You can connect the dots from the pieces, as Rushdie says, and reconstruct your past. I can't necessarily slip into memory but if I piece it together I can just understand what it feels to take that step into the sixth grade, and how much it meant to me. Second, was the notion of a monochromatic image in memory. I'm not sure if my memories are black and white, but I can assure you the colors aren't correct if I try to figure them out. They are just so far away, they're ii another world but sitting at a table with a second, fifth, and eighth grader threw me for a loop. Here I am trying to connect with three kids, trying to convince them that I understand who they are, where they're from, where they're going, and where their minds are at when my days of second, eighth and fifth grade are black and white and so far away.
Salman Rushdie and Vikram Chandra...Shit or "The Shit?"
We can’t simply use the language in the way the British did; that it needs remaking for our own purpose…To conquer English may be to complete the process of making ourselves free. (17)
Salman Rushdie’s “Imaginary Homelands” offers perspective on writers of colonized nations conveying their art in English. When read in conjunction with one another, Vikram Chandra’s “Love and Longing in
Ashcroft stresses the importance of the word ‘transculturation’ as an improvement upon Western-biased words like ‘deculturation’ which have been used by sociologists in the past. This term emphasizes that the nation being colonized is not the only side receiving new culture. The colonizers, in
Rushdie first offers a rather practical argument for choosing English as a language. He sees the speaking of English to be an ever emerging necessity and fears the practice of a sort of ghetto-isolationism, dwelling only in Indian culture. He would identify himself and probably Chandra as “translated men.” (17) Having moved from one nation to another, something of their personal identity has been translated. However, he maintains that “It is normally supposed that something gets lost in translation; I cling, obstinately, to the notion that something can also be gained.” (17) He sees the final step in gaining from this translation, as the conquering of the English language. Indian writers can make the words their own, maintaining their own culture within the parameters of a new language.
Chandra demonstrates this rather well. He immerses us in the Indian culture all the while speaking our language. He makes no reference to the fact that this is not his natural tongue, and until he sprinkles in Indian words, one can almost assume that English is his first. Chandra treats these Indian words and phrases nonchalantly. We can assume by context that Sartaj’s shamiana is an erection, but Chandra seems unapologetic about leaving us in the dark as to the meaning of the word bewda. Perhaps he is emphasizing the importance of content and story over language. Seemingly, this story could be recounted in any language. Chandra leaves us in the dark over Iqbal’s sex in order to show us it is irrelevant to the story. Similarly, he does not translate these words to show that what he is trying to convey does not depend solely on language.
Just as Rushdie advises, Chandra makes the idiosyncrasies of the English language his own. Unapparent to me in Chandra’s text is the guilt that Rushdie seems to experience over his removal from the land of which he writes “What I was actually doing was a novel of memory and about memory, so that my
Chandra does these things in order to expose English and Americans to his homeland’s culture, to reciprocate the transfer he has experienced. Logically, there is no more powerful a way to transfer culture. While, the taste of food, the sound of music, the look of artwork are all ways to impart culture, I feel that none of these arts are so closely linked and ever changing as language.
I think of my friend Peter, who was a German exchange student. We were drinking juice in a Starbucks after school when he remarked “This juice is shit.” In a half a year he had picked up a lot of American culture (and I regret we were responsible for teaching him a good number of swears), but often still misused phrases. We asked him whether the juice was “shit (meaning bad)” or in fact, “the shit (very good).” This confused him further, but we eventually gleaned that he did not like his Berry Manilow drink. I pondered how one article could make such a difference in a sentence, especially slang and realized how much of our pop-culture he was acquiring through language.
Vikram Chandra and Salman Rushdie take a very novel approach in imparting culture. Rather than hoping that others will learn their language and enjoy their texts, these “translated men” master the language of those they hope to inform. In doing so, they acquire many more readers, willing to absorb their homeland.
Broken Mirrors
In both “Imaginary Homelands” by Salman Rushdie and “Love and Longing in Bombay” by Vikram Chandra, the debate on whether or not you can return to your past is discussed. Both “Imaginary Homelands” and “Love and Longing in Bombay” present that while you cannot return to your past, the changes that brought you to your future can allow you to look onto your past in a way that may been without those changes unattainable.
”In “Imaginary Homelands”, Salman Rushdie speaks of how your past, your home, and your culture can affect the present. “ […] it reminds me that it’s my present that is foreign, and that the past is home, albeit a lost home in a lost city in the mists of lost time.” In this quote Rushdie is describing looking at a black and white picture of his house. One might think that looking at a black and white picture of your old house, it would appear to be something distant and foreign, but in this quote Rushdie points out that our past, and the place where we grew up are the only real things in our lives. It is the present that is forming and changing, and our past that represents the true sense of home and solidity.
While Rushdie describes how you cannot return to your past and subsequently your home he moves on to describe looking into the past as a broken mirror, unable to see the whole or distinct picture of your past, and explains “The broken mirror may actually be as valuable as the one which is supposedly unflawed.” This quote suggests that while you cannot go back to your past or your home, through your new experiences and changed life you can look onto the past with a new perspective and learn things from it that were perhaps before unattainable. He describes that in remembering his past, he is able to remember details and interpret events with a new significance and importance, something he would have been unable to do if his home and past had never changed into his present.
In “Love and Longing in Bombay” by Vikram Chandra, issues of past, home, and changing culture are also addressed. The view expressed by Rushdie on a past you cannot return to but that you can observe with a new appreciation is exemplified by the story told in “Kama”, as well as the structure of the novel.
In the story of Dharma we are introduced to a respected general Jago who has lost his leg in battle. We learn that he has learned to ignore the pain, and in order to fall asleep at night he dreams of falling into darkness. When we meet Jago, he has recently become unable to block the pain, and can no longer sleep as a result. He returns to the house in which he grew up, and finds it haunted by the ghost of a small child. In returning home, he reflects on his childhood and we learn that as a small child his older brother was killed accidently by falling off of their roof. His inability to escape the pain of his missing leg symbolizes his inability to forget the pain of losing his brother, and it only upon returning home and reflecting on his home and his past that he is able to come to terms with it, and move on. Had he not lost his leg, and felt the pain of his present, he would not have been able to return home, and reflect on his past in a new way bringing him peace. This relates to Rushdie’s views that when you experience drastic changes that move you away from your home and into the present, it allows you to look back onto your past with a new perspective.
In “Love and Longing in Bombay”, a group of men and women from modern day India gather in a bar to hear the old stories of Subramaniam. The old stories that Subramaniam tells are appealing because while they are stories from the past, when looked at in the present can take new personal meaning to those it is being told to. Within the stories themselves are characters being faced with issues of past, present, and changing cultures, suggesting that change is a constant in every person’s life, and not something that can be avoided. It stresses that while much is lost when your culture is changed and affected, much can also be gained if you use the changes to appreciate and observe the past. If nothing ever changed, and everything stayed constant, you would not have the opportunity to reflect or appreciate the past.
Both “Imaginary Homelands” and “Love and Longing in Bombay” deal with issues of the changing culture in India as well as dealing with concepts of home, the past, and the present. Both works show how while it is true that once a culture is changed, and once you leave your home you can never go back, it allows an opportunity to appreciate and reflect on the past, and look at the past with a newfound perspective that may not have been possible had the changes never occurred.
”In “Imaginary Homelands”, Salman Rushdie speaks of how your past, your home, and your culture can affect the present. “ […] it reminds me that it’s my present that is foreign, and that the past is home, albeit a lost home in a lost city in the mists of lost time.” In this quote Rushdie is describing looking at a black and white picture of his house. One might think that looking at a black and white picture of your old house, it would appear to be something distant and foreign, but in this quote Rushdie points out that our past, and the place where we grew up are the only real things in our lives. It is the present that is forming and changing, and our past that represents the true sense of home and solidity.
While Rushdie describes how you cannot return to your past and subsequently your home he moves on to describe looking into the past as a broken mirror, unable to see the whole or distinct picture of your past, and explains “The broken mirror may actually be as valuable as the one which is supposedly unflawed.” This quote suggests that while you cannot go back to your past or your home, through your new experiences and changed life you can look onto the past with a new perspective and learn things from it that were perhaps before unattainable. He describes that in remembering his past, he is able to remember details and interpret events with a new significance and importance, something he would have been unable to do if his home and past had never changed into his present.
In “Love and Longing in Bombay” by Vikram Chandra, issues of past, home, and changing culture are also addressed. The view expressed by Rushdie on a past you cannot return to but that you can observe with a new appreciation is exemplified by the story told in “Kama”, as well as the structure of the novel.
In the story of Dharma we are introduced to a respected general Jago who has lost his leg in battle. We learn that he has learned to ignore the pain, and in order to fall asleep at night he dreams of falling into darkness. When we meet Jago, he has recently become unable to block the pain, and can no longer sleep as a result. He returns to the house in which he grew up, and finds it haunted by the ghost of a small child. In returning home, he reflects on his childhood and we learn that as a small child his older brother was killed accidently by falling off of their roof. His inability to escape the pain of his missing leg symbolizes his inability to forget the pain of losing his brother, and it only upon returning home and reflecting on his home and his past that he is able to come to terms with it, and move on. Had he not lost his leg, and felt the pain of his present, he would not have been able to return home, and reflect on his past in a new way bringing him peace. This relates to Rushdie’s views that when you experience drastic changes that move you away from your home and into the present, it allows you to look back onto your past with a new perspective.
In “Love and Longing in Bombay”, a group of men and women from modern day India gather in a bar to hear the old stories of Subramaniam. The old stories that Subramaniam tells are appealing because while they are stories from the past, when looked at in the present can take new personal meaning to those it is being told to. Within the stories themselves are characters being faced with issues of past, present, and changing cultures, suggesting that change is a constant in every person’s life, and not something that can be avoided. It stresses that while much is lost when your culture is changed and affected, much can also be gained if you use the changes to appreciate and observe the past. If nothing ever changed, and everything stayed constant, you would not have the opportunity to reflect or appreciate the past.
Both “Imaginary Homelands” and “Love and Longing in Bombay” deal with issues of the changing culture in India as well as dealing with concepts of home, the past, and the present. Both works show how while it is true that once a culture is changed, and once you leave your home you can never go back, it allows an opportunity to appreciate and reflect on the past, and look at the past with a newfound perspective that may not have been possible had the changes never occurred.
Memory and "Closure"
The point that struck me most poignantly in Rushdie’s writings was his claim that the fractured mirror has just as much worth as the pure mirror, maybe even more in certain outlooks. For example, he describes bits and pieces of a memory: each bit and piece is almost worth more than the memory as a whole as each one represents a sort of special and precious springboard from which a whole new experience is obtained.
For example, Rushdie describes remembered certain details such as the fashions of the decades and clever advertisements. Each of these fragments is like a piece of the puzzle, he claims, and from these a memory can be reconstructed. Naturally this memory won’t be exactly the same experience that formed it, but there exists a concept called “closure” which author/artist(/genius) Scott McCloud describes as “observing the parts but perceiving the whole.” In this way pieces of a memory come together with the “glue” of imagination, which fills in the missing bits.
This idea, I think, is what makes Rushdie’s comments about the concept of immigrative writing so unique. No “Indian” can ever write from his perspective, no “Indian” can remember India the way he does with his own special memories. This idea of a whole arising from fragments which do not necessarily recreate the whole completely on their own is a concept which relates directly to Chandra’s Love and Longing in Bombay. In the same way Chandra uses the narrator Subramaniam’s many stories to paint a picture of an old India as it grew into the new and how the new reflects the old. Here the old man uses his own memories in his retellings to influence his own stories, giving each of them a unique twist. This effect is impossible without the fractured nature of remembrance; in fact, one is dependent on the other. What truly makes this a great facet of literature, however, is reflected by Rushdie’s comment: “A book is not justified by it’s author’s worthiness to write it, but by the quality of what has been written.” It is not enough to piece together some good memories; if the gap is too large and the imagination too limited one’s sense of closure may not be enough to bridge the gap and create a truly separate and special experience with which to share.
For example, Rushdie describes remembered certain details such as the fashions of the decades and clever advertisements. Each of these fragments is like a piece of the puzzle, he claims, and from these a memory can be reconstructed. Naturally this memory won’t be exactly the same experience that formed it, but there exists a concept called “closure” which author/artist(/genius) Scott McCloud describes as “observing the parts but perceiving the whole.” In this way pieces of a memory come together with the “glue” of imagination, which fills in the missing bits.
This idea, I think, is what makes Rushdie’s comments about the concept of immigrative writing so unique. No “Indian” can ever write from his perspective, no “Indian” can remember India the way he does with his own special memories. This idea of a whole arising from fragments which do not necessarily recreate the whole completely on their own is a concept which relates directly to Chandra’s Love and Longing in Bombay. In the same way Chandra uses the narrator Subramaniam’s many stories to paint a picture of an old India as it grew into the new and how the new reflects the old. Here the old man uses his own memories in his retellings to influence his own stories, giving each of them a unique twist. This effect is impossible without the fractured nature of remembrance; in fact, one is dependent on the other. What truly makes this a great facet of literature, however, is reflected by Rushdie’s comment: “A book is not justified by it’s author’s worthiness to write it, but by the quality of what has been written.” It is not enough to piece together some good memories; if the gap is too large and the imagination too limited one’s sense of closure may not be enough to bridge the gap and create a truly separate and special experience with which to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)