Motherland in Home and the World part 2

I wanted to talk about the poste that I made, Motherland in The Home and the Wrold, and just expand on what I was talking about. More than once, one of the narrators/characters make metaphors on how the land, the country embodies a woman. All three characters need to imagine the country as a woman in order to make their vision clear. Bimala tends to make herself the country, “I have my desire to be fascinated and fascination must be supplied to me in bodily shape by my country. She must have some visible symbol casting its spell upon my mind. I would make my country a Person, and call her Mother, Goddess, Durga-for whom I would redden the earth with sacrificial offerings.’ I am human, not divine’”. In this quote, Bimala is comparing herself to the motherland. Saying she is the mother of the country. Bimala becomes the mother, as she embodies the vision of her country. When she embodies herself as the country both Sandip and Nikhil are able to control her in the way in which they wish. Sandip also sees Bimala as the country. One could say he is using her as his muse. In more than one circumstance, Sandip discusses why he needs Bimala as his muse and what he plans do with her, “If only women could be set free from the artificial fetters put round them by men, we could see on earth the living image of Kali, the shameless, pitiless goddess. I am a worshipper of Kali, and one day I shall truly worship her, setting Bimala on her altar of Destruction. For this let me get ready”(84). Sandip creates her into the nation by making her goddess. His rational makes her believe that she embodies the nation; he swoons her into believing that he is her woman. A woman of the nation not a woman of power; Bilama is controlled by Sandips dreams and visions. Nikhil as shapes Bimala into the country that he wants and the person he wants her to be. Nikhil says he allows his wife freedom, but really what he is doing is creating the woman he wants. It is not about freedom; it is about power, “I must acknowledge that I have merely been an accident in Bimala’s life. Her nature, perhaps, can only find true union with one like Sandip”(65). Nikhil set his wife free to have her make a choice, he did not do it for her, he did it for himself. Nikhil wanted a wife who was independent enough to make her own decisions; to stand by herself. The same thing can be said for the way he wants his country. He wants a country free from the British and free to stand on its own. Nikhil is making his wife into a symbol of her nation. These men have made her into what they expect her to be; what they expect their nation to be. Their two different visions of nation are shown with how they treat Bimala.

My reflections on Home and the World

The underlying theme for Home and The World is the role of love and devotion and its effects on nationalism. However, one overlooked symbolism is that the love triangle between Nikhl, Bimala and Sandip is the reflection of that between Great Britain, India and the Swadeshi movement. A lot of parallels can be drawn when the two relationships are compared. Also an analysis of the traits of the three main characters shows the flaws and strengths that each factor has. Nikhil is the embodiment of Great Britain: he supports freedom; he is not living by traditional roles or expectations, and is always giving even if it is at a personal cost. Even though, his family is traditional a powerful one, his education elevates their level even more. He brings enlightenment to his wife by getting her an education, improves the life of the women in his household; he treats his widowed sister-in-law with respect, is not controlling of his wife and gives respect to his grandmother. Great Britain is different from other colonial masters in the sense that they give their subjects more freedom just like Nikhil does to Bimala. Britain is different from other colonial masters because they do not always participate in the affairs of the local people. They just like Nikhil believe that the people had the right to do what is best for them at time without their interruption. The invasion of Britain brought about a new way of life into Bengal, they introduced their language, mannerisms, customs and diet and redefine what important to the elite. Similarly, Nikhil brought about a different way of life into his household with his ideas about equality between men and women. Tagore uses Nikhil passively toward the affair between Bimala and Sandip to depict the British notion about the impact of the Swadeshi movement. Just like Nikhil, the British were naïve in believing that Bengal’s loyalty was too strong to wander under the temptation of the movement.

Bimala is represents the nation of India or Bengal and the changes that it goes through with the introduction of English rule and then the Swadeshi movement. The beginning, the marriage between Nikhil and Bimala is harmonious with only a few fractions here and there. The relationship between England and that of Bengal was cordial for the most part with a few instances of fractions. The English brought literacy through the English formal education, adored Bengal with gift in terms of infrastructure, government and even goods such as tea, biscuits etc. Nikhil provides Bimala with an education, free will and introduces her to certain aspects of British culture by buying her foreign goods. Just like the English benefitted from Bengal in terms of natural resources and cheap labor, Nikhil is able to enjoy his wife’s intelligence, beauty and companionship. He allows her to make decisions about certain things just like Britain chooses not abolish some of the Bengal tradition. Bimala holds her husband in awe till she meets Sandip: the relationship and attitude toward Britain is changed by the introduction of the Swadeshi movement. Bimala begins to see herself in a new light and seeks to create a new identity. Bengal with the introduction of the Swadeshi movement begins to rethink its relationship with Britain. Bimala, under the influence of this movement takes drastic measures to make her ideas come to pass. Bengal is transformed and becomes more aggressive in its push for independence because the Swadeshi movement.  

Sandip who symbolizes the Swadeshi movement is very aggressive and does whatever it takes to get his ideas realized. The movement is aggressive by insisting that the people usually the poor give up British goods in support of local ones. It does not however take into consideration what condition in which the people are going to be left in. Just like Sandip’s desire to have the movement greatly supported leads to him using his best friend and even his wife without truly considering the state that it leaves them in. His affair with Bimala, though beneficial at first, leads to a lot of grievances in the end. Similarly the Swadeshi movement was ideal but it proved to bring about a lot of fractions based on how it is interrupted. Sandip uses his love for Bimala to build her up, only to use her in the end. The movement left Bengal with a lot more heartache than resolution for a long time. 

 Tagore book serve to illustrate the ways in which Indian nationalism was both positive and greatly flawed. 

Motherland in The Home and the World

Last week in class Dr. Dasgupta brought up the term “Motherland,” which I thought was very interesting. My understanding of this term is that it actually gives people (men, in general) the “right” to control the woman. The “Motherland” is the country, which is generally controlled and ruled by another source of power. For years the land or country has been controlled and literally penetrated. In many different novels and throughout history land is something that needs to possess. In many different cultures this term allows men to unconsciously control the woman like he would control and conquer a piece of land; which makes The Home and the World a very interesting novel. Not only do you have men and government fighting over the control of “land” as a piece of property, you also have issues of laws concerning women; in particular ones of a widow versus a wife. Nikhil, a powerful Zamindar, who is in control of land treats both his sister and his wife more than just property. The fact that he treats these women more than a piece of property that he owns is an interesting parallel to most per-conceived customs in the culture that this book is placed in. The term that is defined, Motherland” grants men more power over women; this term makes women become a piece of property.

The Panchu Issue

So one of the side issues in The Home and the World was Nikhil's efforts to aid the poor man Panchu. Panchu was a poor merchant who sold foreign goods. he had his goods burned by Swadeshi enthusiasts, and his zamindar (landlord) demanded rent which he could not pay. Panchu was set to recieve an inheritance from his dead uncle that would have helped him pay off his debt, but out of nowhere a (sham?) aunt showed up and tried to claim the inheritance. Since Nikhil is busy with other things, his schoolmaster offers to resolve the issue. The old master stays with Panchu, who is also housing this aunt. The master notes that Panchu treats the aunt badly because he is unsure of her "caste," which I believe means some kind of social status. The master listens to the aunt and becomes friends with her. He begins questioning her about about her legitimacy to claim the inheritance, and out of shame she leaves. The master thinks less of Panchu because of his treatment of the aunt, but he has resolved the issue nonetheless. I feel like there is a deeper, symbolic meaning to this story that I haven't picked up on but I don't know what it is. Any thoughts?

The Home and the World

The Home and the World illustrates perfectly the struggle of the Swadeshi movement in Bangladesh, and the struggle that so many nations see happening where almost all production is done outside of the country.  Its something that has been seen throughout history, and it is something that is seen today in the United States.  Do we take the higher cost of goods to have production be done in the native country?  What happens to the poor when the cost of goods go up and highly valued products are now at costs that are inaccessible to the poor?  Tagore does a great job throughout the book of making this struggle so apparent, and manages to keep entertainment within the struggle through a love story.  The power Sandip has over the people in his radical speeches and actions in the burning of the clothes and goods makes the movement understandable and angry as a reader and wanting to join the cause.  But with Nikhil playing the reasonable land owner who understands that his people cannot afford to be buying goods that are made in the country, a struggle for what is the right thing to do begins.  Soon a war begins on which is the position that the people should be taking.  Tagore makes the struggle more accessible to readings by making the a love triangle central to the story line and playing it parallel to the Swadeshi movement. Nikhil’s wife, Bimila who Nikhil strives to make her a part of society and educate herself through allowing her to leave her compounds and talk with Sandip and understand the things going on.  Bimila takes her opportunity in the completely wrong direction though, falling for the charm and grace of Sandip and ignoring the kindness and level headedness of her husband.  The book brings things to a complete full circle when Bimila realizes her mistakes, but a little bit too late, as her husband is killed trying to keep peace as he had been from the beginning.  The story truly looks at the Swadeshi movement from all angles, and takes you through the process of Tagore’s thoughts and feelings on the movement as each character plays a part of society, swadeshi Sandip, the government Nikhil, and the citizens of the nation, Bimila.  I enjoyed the way that Tagore made the love story run parallel to the struggle the nation was going through, you can understand the charm of Sandip from the speeches he gives and understand how Bimila was so drawn to the cause.

The Home and the World

As I have previously mentioned in class, The Home and the World legitimately pissed me off.  Now, I feel like such a girly girl admitting this, but I actually do enjoy a good romance every now and again, and I don’t even mind the whole love triangle thing every once in a while.  What annoyed the crap out of me in this instance was how stupid Bimila was being.  Now I know I can’t even begin to understand Purdah, or the immense shock of freedom, but my goodness, if this was how every woman acted when they got a chance at a life out of the home, it is no wonder they kept them locked up.  I don’t care how alluring the unknown is, if you are happily married you have no business acting like a slut in your husband’s home, I’m sorry.   I’m sure some of my annoyance was with the way the novel was translated, and I missed some of the nuances of the story I might otherwise have gotten, but still.  In the same way, if educating women turned out so disastrously for Nikhil, it’s no wonder they don’t educate their women.  Also, as far as Sandip goes, he is a vile creature in my opinion.  Whereas Bimila can beg innocence and ignorance for her actions, Sandip knew exactly what he was doing.  They might not have had a bro code in Bangladesh back then, but NOWHERE and in NO time is it socially acceptable to go into your friend’s home and try to steal his wife.  That is downright low anywhere.  I understand that this book had a much deeper meaning than any of what I am saying now, but I have trouble getting past that fact due to how annoyed I was while reading it, to be honest. 

Imaginary Homelands

I know this blog is a bit later than most peoples, but up until now I really hadn’t formulated something I thought was worthy of posting.  Even now I am unsure as to the importance of what I’m about to say.  While reading Imaginary Homelands I was able to tell Rushdie was fluent in English due the fluidity of the piece.  It wasn’t necessarily the most interesting thing to read, but it was easily understandable.  I actually enjoyed reading the part of the essay about creating a hybrid world between the two cultures, and the difficulties of things such as language barriers.  He admits that his past is almost foreign to him, but he admits the necessity of knowing your past and your roots, as well as knowing about other cultures, their customs, and their histories.  As a history major I can easily relate to that sentiment, because the ways of the world and the past interests me greatly.  That is partly why I took this course; I figured it might be more interesting than a generic Lit course that focused on something I already knew.  In fact my biggest struggle so far has been with The Home and the World because of the translation, which was not an issue for this piece. 

Existing vs. Living

The Home and the World was interesting to read and Tagore’s choice to have the three main characters have their own point of view chapters was important to the effect of the book.  Although Bimala is the real protagonist, her ideas and thoughts can only convey so much about the issues in this book.  By allowing the reader to see parts of the story from Nikhil’s point of view, or Sandip’s, each character’s motivations are clearer and the emotional impact of some of their choices is much stronger.  When we see how much Nikhil cares for Bimala, even though he fears he is losing her to Sandip, it makes us appreciate him more as a character and how unique he is.  He treats his wife with respect and tries to help the people of his region be self sufficient and live as well as they can.  He is unlike all other zamindars which is why he and Sandip have such an interesting relationship.  They do not agree with each other about the swadeshi movement yet they never become violent towards each other or shout, as they both respect each other.  Sandip eventually gets caught up in the fervor of the movement and starts to turn greedy and selfish while Nikhil becomes even more selfless, going to help the people of his region and ultimately dying trying to restore order.  Sandip does not look for the long term solutions, he is living for the moment and each day brings a new goal for him.  Bimala has to watch this transformation of Sandip throughout the story and only towards the end does she see how much it has changed him, while her husband has stayed loyal and steadfast in his beliefs.  She realizes that he is the only man she wants in her life but then he is snatched away from her, leaving her a widow to live in regret of what could have been.  Although sad, I think this ending is brilliant as it shows how important is is to live life to the fullest.  Nikhil never stopped trying to improve the lives of his people and he tried and tried to free his wife from her simple existence to be educated.  Bimila unfortunately wasted much of her time simply being, not living like her husband.   

Ahead of It's Time.

After reading the book, I found myself with mixed feelings.  Unfortunately, I am not really into romantic love triangle stories and so I disliked the fact that Bimala's emotions were the center of the actual storyline.  That is my opinion, but I do respect how different and groundbreaking it must have been when this story was first published.  In that sense it was ahead of it's time because it presented a woman with an opportunity to expand into the world for the first time in her life which was pretty much unheard of back then.

Additionally, I found it very interesting that Tagore had such an open mind about the whole Swadeshi Movement.  As evidenced by the arguments between Nikhil and Sandip throughout the novel, it would appear that at the time a person picked a side and maintained a closed mind about it.  As the two characters had political debates, not once did one actually hear out what the other was saying.  As a reader I could understand that they were both right for different reasons and were frustrated that they were so unable to see it that way.  The fact that the author was able to write from both perspectives must've meant that he considered both perspectives.  

Today it is debated whether or not the Swadeshi Movement was productive or damaging to India as a whole, seeing that the Muslims and the Hindus were divided into two nations.  It seemed as if Tagore was writing about this occurrence decades before it took place.  Whether or not I enjoyed the story, the man was brilliant.  

English Sex and Cigarettes

Sandip and Bimala are caught up in the Swadeshi movement and anxious to end trade with England, but they continue to willingly intertwine English culture into their daily lives. I am somewhat confused by this contradiction. After first hearing Sandip speak about the movement, Bimala tells her husband that she wants to burn all of her English clothes in a bonfire, which is a pretty extreme statement of desired disassociation with England. They both preach that they want nothing to do with England. However, they each show one small sign in the novel that they are not completely willing to rid of English culture. I feel that the author included these individual incidents to prove how unrealistic the ideas of the movement were, or at least the extremity to which the two characters wanted to follow through with it. Sandip particularly seems to have a 'go big or go home' attitude, yet he can not even follow through with the framework of his own Nationalistic movement. The two incidents that I refer to are Sandip reading an English book and Bimala using an English pattern for her embroidery. I feel that the two characters are not even conscious of the contradictions they are making. Bimala was in the middle of making her embroidery when Sandip came to visit, and as soon as she heard of his arrival she "flung aside the embroidery" (70). She obviously likes some English style, but literally throws aside these feelings for her dedication to the Swadeshi movement. There is a constant back-and-forth movement with Bimala between the English culture which has seeped into her lifestyle and the Nationalistic ideals. Sandip, who seems to outwardly detest all things that aren't Indian, reads an English book on sex to better understand human nature. Not only does he read this book, but he uses it as inspiration for the movement. This contradiction is pretty obvious and self-explanatory. Maybe I am misunderstanding the Swadeshi movement and exaggerating the distaste that the people involved in the movement had for the English. However, I do feel like these contradictions were strategically placed in the book to highlight the problems with the movement and its unrealistically extreme framework.

In the movie-version of the novel, the director really exagerated the use of English goods. The camera would zoom in on different English products that Sandip and Bimala were using. After Sandip had finished drinking his tea, the camera focussed in on the English tea cup he had been using. When Bimala picked up an English-made vase with a picture of an angel on it, the camera focused on the vase. These goods may not have caught my attention if the camera hadn't singled them out, but because of the way the movie was filmed these products became very obvious. It seemed like Bimala and Sandip were not thinking that the products they were using and touching were English made, like they were so accustomed to seeing the products around that it didn't phase them. I feel that this was the director picking up on the author's opinion that the English goods were too far integrated into the Indian culture to be completely removed by Swadeshi.
However, there was one specific situation in the move where Sandip was fully aware that he was using an English product and did not have a problem with it. He smoked English cigarettes throughout the movie, saying that he preferred them over Swadeshi cigarettes and it was something he would not compromise on. One of his fellow Swadeshi leaders even asked to borrow one of the cigarettes. This made the statement that Sandip and other Swadeshi members were not willing to sacrifice certain goods for their own pleasure. At the same time, they were forcing poor merchants to burn English goods and lose their livelihoods for Swadeshi. The director was really clever to use the cigarettes to show the hypocracy of Sandip and his partners, and also to point out the flaws in Sandip's character.

Describing the Past

As I was reading Rushdie's recollection of Bombay, I was intrigued by the images he used to re-create his homeland in his mind. He remembers his Bombay as "the vividness of the red tiles, the yellow-edged green of cactus leaves, the brilliance of bougainvillea creeper" (9). The reason I say his Bombay is because this was the authors own perception of his homeland. These are the details he remembers and uses to reconstruct Bombay in his mind. Although tiles and plants may seem insignificant to others who are not from his homeland, to him they hold a significantly deeper meaning.

As a reader, the objects that Rushdie listed did not stir any emotions. This is because they do not describe my own past. I am from a different time and place, and I will never understand the connection that Rushdie feels towards Bombay. I will never have the same memories or images engrained in my mind. However, I was tempted to pause and reflect on images from my own past. I was surprised to find that my memories were of specific foods, clothes, and toys. Although these items hold significance in my mind, to someone from a different past they would be meaningless. Therefor, as a reader I can use images of my own past to understand the connection between Rushdie and the objects of his past.

In the very beginning of Home and the World, Bimala says to her deceased mother, "today there comes back to mind the vermillion mark at the parting of your hair, the sari which you used to wear, with its wide red boarder, and those wonderful eyes of yours, full of depth and peace" (17). She remembers her mother by small, fragmented details. These details do nothing to evoke memories of my own mother, much like Rushdie's description of his homeland did not remind me of my own homeland. However, when I think of the images that do remind me of my mother, I can better understand the emotion that Bimala is feeling. Rushdie and Bimala both use imagery to recall moments of their past. As a reader, I feel the same emotions in my own life, I just use different images to re-live these emotions. I can't help but wonder, why is it that we associate such strong emotions with small details of our lives?

A Woman Who Was Angry at the Mirror

I began reading "The Home and the World" before the in-class lecture. Now that I've gained more knowledge concerning the partition, the role of the British, and the Nationalist movement, Tagore's words have acquired a new significance that is more meaningful than the love triangle at the surface of his novel. I understand now why Bimala would feel the urge to light fire to her foreign clothes as a pledge to the Swadeshi storm that surges in her blood and why Sandip's speech was so moving.

I am curious about Tagore's structural decision to make Bimala's story a frame narrative. The novel begins as Bimala introduces herself as her mother's daughter, a dark-faced young woman who is angry with the mirror. She speaks of cautiously, silently rising in the morning to "take the dust of [her]  husband's feet without waking him" (18). She worships him. But, this description is all told in the past tense. At the entrance of the novel she has already  been educated and exited the Purdah. She admits, "these words that I write seem to blush with shame in their prose setting" (19). Is her narrative voice unreliable, tainted by nostalgia and her new-found intelligence? And what is the purpose of having a revolving perspective when Bimala seems to be the heart of the novel?

Also, I noticed Bimala's ability to be both veiled and worshiped. As Sandip gives his speech, Bimala sees his eyes flash over her in the crowd and imagines herself transformed as "the sole representative of Bengal's womanhood"..."for we women are not only the deities of the household fire, but the flame of the soul itself" (31). Later, Sandip expresses that "it is our women who will save the country" (39). Tagore is fiddling with a world that restricts Bimala to the domestic sphere and places her behind a screen. Instead, men prompt her in conversation. Her husband pushes her to enter the universe beyond the home. This seems unconventional, impossible, exciting.

The Mind, the Memory and the Foreign

Despite having been born in America and having parents who are both successful in their occupations and largely fluent in English, my family remains, at heart, Chinese and perpetually at a distance from the true American experience. My mother in particular has a strong attraction to foreign films, usually ones that raise questions about being American, being a foreigner, coming into one's own and discovering one's true identity. Non-Caucasian immigrants to America appear to struggle much more with coming to terms with their newfound identity as "_____-American" than Europeans, probably since they do not fit into the common assumption of Americans as whites. Because I'm more Americanized than most of my Asian friends (I'm not required or obligated to speak Mandarin Chinese at home--not being fluent in it--and I have little Chinese music in my media library) and was born here in America, for me there is less of a struggle to really come to terms with my American and Chinese identity, especially since I've never known a purely Chinese identity to begin with. Because of this, I am not able to completely identify with what Salman Rushdie is saying about capturing the reality--his reality--that was his past in his mother country. However, having come from an immigrant family, there still remains for me the challenge to be at peace with myself, knowing that I'm not white and that therefore I will never be part of the group many people consider "American."

However, I do agree with many of his points, especially those about art as a way to counter others (like politicians, as Rushdie suggests) who would rather have silence and writing as one's way to interact with, confront and understand the past while pushing towards a vision of reality. I believe that writing is one of the few and most effective ways that one can revisit the past and hopefully understand it, and also one of the best ways to manipulate reality if one wishes.

Imaginary Homelands and Diaspora in Chinese Literature

The ideas discussed in Salman Rushdie's "Imaginary Homelands" line up perfectly with some of the books I've been reading for my Diaspora in Chinese Literature class. We just finished reading America is in the Heart by Carlos Bulosan. Carlos leaves his native Philippines in search of a better life in America. In "Imaginary Homelands," Rushdie writes:

"Meaning is a shaky edifice we build out of scraps, dogmas, childhood injuries, newspaper articles, chance remarks, old films, small victories, people hated, people loved; perhaps it is because our sense of what is the case is constructed from such inadaquate materials that we defend so fiercely, even to the death."

I felt like this passage lined up almost perfectly with a passage from Bulosan's book. He writes:

"It came to me that no man--no one at all--could destroy my faith in America again. It was something that had grown out of my defeats and successes, something shaped by my struggles for a place in this vast land, digging my hands into the rich soil here and there, catching a freight to the north and south, seeking free meals in dingy gambling houses, reading a book that opened up worlds of heroic thoughts. It was something that grew out of sacrifices and loneliness of my friends, of my brothers in America and my family in the Philippines..."

While Rushdie is talking about looking back at the things he struggles to recover from his homeland, Bulosan talks about the things which have shaped the journey he has undergone in America. The comparison makes me wonder just how similar the two processes are.

Pork and Guavas

The portion of Salman Rushdie's "Imaginary Homelands" that resonated the most with me was the assertion on the final page that "displaced" writers shouldn't try to conform to a cultural stereotype or cater to a specific audience. They "have access to a second tradition, quite apart from their own racial history. It is the culture and political history of the phenomenon of migration, displacement, life in a minority group" (20). They have a unique voice bred from physical alienation and distorted memories. They can embrace their heritage as "translated men" (17). 

This notion reminded me of Esmeralda Santiago's When I Was Puerto Rican, which is written from the perspective of a young girl who grows up in Puerto Rico and moves to Brooklyn. After years of adjusting to urban life, learning English, and pushing past degrading expectations in school because of her heritage to become a successful Ivy League student, she stands in a supermarket pressing a guava to her nose and feeling conflicted. She is a product of Puerto Rico and her mother's traditional upbringing. She is also a product of her mother's decision to transport seven children to New York and the education and culture that transforms her. Just as Salman Rushdie speaks of a haunting, partial memory of Bombay and a hybrid identity, Esmeralda cooks frijoles in a cramped Brooklyn kitchen and picks guavas from a supermarket bin instead of from a tree. "We are Hindus who have crossed the black water; we are Muslims who eat pork" (15). This fusion, this ambivalence creates a fresh, exciting voice.

Did "Imaginary Homelands" remind anyone else of other texts they've read?

Reaction to Rushdie

I have not before been familiarized with Salman Rushdie, however, I found "Imaginary Homelands" to be quite intriguing in its philosophical approach to age old questions concerning heritage, homeland, and literature. In my opinion, one of the most interesting points Rushdie makes in the essay is the existing relation between writers and politicians. Since the past and collective memory can often be manipulated by the State, writers are often useful to society in order to challenge the politician's version of the truth. A varied interpretation of the world can be useful to society since, "redescribing a world is the necessary first step towards changing it"(14). Moreover, Rushdie is a valued writer due to his interesting life perspective as he emigrated from India at a young age. Although the homeland he remembered as a boy is strictly imaginary now, his peculiar position between two cultures "is not an infertile territory for a writer to occupy" (15). In some ways Rushdie owes his successful writing career to the atypical circumstances of his heritage as they provided "new angles at which to enter reality"(15).

Writing About Two Different Pasts

As we discussed in class, Salman Rushdie’s Imaginary Homelands has a lot to do with the past and how it is viewed.  Rushdie starts off telling his story and how he moved from India when he was young and although he did not live there for most of his life, he still sees it as home.  His early years were chaotic as India and Pakistan separated and he had to leave his childhood home behind.  The past becomes a wonderful and mysterious place for him as he remembers parts of it and refers to a few photographs for the rest.  However the past did occur in one way and one way only and as Rushdie states later on, there are millions of versions of India and “his” version is only in his mind.  When he returns to his childhood home everything he dreamed and imagined is suddenly gone, as he is faced with reality and the “true” version of his past.  This does not ruin his memories but the image he had built up in his mind is now replaced by what he has seen.  It seems like such a strange experience to go through but at the same time, Rushdie has another home, and although the past is not what he thought it was, I think that gives him inspiration with two different homes and two upbringings to draw from.  I found this clip which has Rushdie talking about being a writer from two different areas which was interesting to hear, let me know what you think of it.

My reaction to Ghazal readings

Despite, my love for literature, I do not like poetry that much, therefore, I knew that this packet was going to be a personal challenge. The Ghazals though very difficult to easily read and understand are quite interesting. the imagery that it paints of mostly  North Indian culture,surroundings and the general exaggerated notions about love and life makes it fun. I would have to say that  the general explanations sections are the best part to read because I am learning more about the background of the authors which makes the themes of their poetry more understanding. Although, I would not come out say that I am now a fan of poetry, Ghazals offer their own dynamics.I really like the format that it is written in especially the using of the author's name as a sign off. I  hope with continuous reading my understanding will prove and maybe by the end, like poetry a bit more.

Ghazals and Other Western Forms

As I said in class, the main reason I enrolled in LIT 232 was to become more exposed to worldly literature and poetry outside of North America and Europe. In many ways, it is serendipitous that the Ghazal is the first topic of discussion in class since this is the most foreign type of expressive writing I have seen yet. However, after becoming acquainted with the sylistic and structural aspects of the Ghazal I was able to put it into contexts with other types of poetry I have been familiarized with. Last semester I took a class in creative writing and we spent several weeks discussing the sonnet. The sonnet (especially the Shakespearean sonnet) is similar to the Ghazal in several ways. Both the Ghazal and the Shakespearean sonnet are formulaic in their construction. The two poetic forms must be consistent with certain rhyme schemes to stay true to tradition. Where the Ghazal has verbal restrictions such as radifs and a particular rhyme scheme, Shakespearean sonnets follow iambic pentameter and a single rhyme scheme. Where Ghazals open with a makta, or rhyming couplet, Shakespearean sonnets always end with a rhyming couplet. Furthermore, Ghazals are known to encounter differing themes and emotions with each passing couplet, creating diverse and often perplexing themes. The Shakespearean sonnet also contains a key thematic change in its structure called a volta. Usually occurring after the second quatrain, the volta also diverstifies the emotions of the poem, often turning a love sonnet into a song of lament and remorse, or vice versa. Lastly, Ghazals and Sonnets are both similar in their common thematic expressions of love.
Thus, I found it interesting to see that the Ghazal, though very different from western forms, is not completely foreign as it shares some distinct commonalities with Shakespeare's influential form of sonnet.

Imaginary Homelands

Salman Rushdie is an author that has intrigued me for quite some time. Sadly, I have not read any of his novels, though I do own a copy of Midnight's Children. Needless to say, I think that Rushdie is the perfect person to write about so called "imaginary homelands," since he has had several homelands over the course of his life. What I find most intriguing about Rushdie's essay is his claim that, "redescribing a world is the necessary first step towards changing it" (14). My 499 this semester, The Asian-American Diaspora, makes an argument for the very same idea and the more I read for that class, the more I understand this to be true. I feel that Rushdie does not believe that to have imaginary homelands is erroneous but rather, that the writer is able to cross these perceived borders without consequence or censure from the government. While he focuses on Indian writers living in England, there is an underlying universality to his argument. Nowhere does he make this clearer than with his final plea to his readers: "'For God's sake, open the universe a little more!'" Here he is urging everyone to forget about their preconceived national boundaries and begin living as a united people, instead of continuing to be defined by what "country" we live in.