THE GROUND BENEATH HER FEET-SALMAN RUSHDIE

Sometimes prejudice can harbinger delight and surprise. I began reading The Ground Beneath Her Feet to find reasons to dislike Rushdie but by the end I am glad I found out why Rushdie deserves the hype that surrounds him.

The Ground Beneath Her Feet is indeed a work of great art though, with visible fault lines. The novel works on epic proportions. The Orpheus-Eurydice myth is culled into modern set up of pop-stars but that’s to say the least.

Rushdie is a great prose –stylist. He works carefully to create a pattern of life. Sometimes though, especially in the first half, the seams of his workmanship are visible. The art does not look effortless. Also restraint is not one of his gifts, at least not in this book. So the narrative gets cumbersome and repetitive and characters begin to look like caricatures. But he makes up for these flaws eventually.

His characters which at one time are exposed to the risk of appearing stock-types, emerge as strong and causative elements in the novel. He throws into the arena a Greek-God-style hero (Ormus), a modern-style anti-hero (Vina) and a single-man chorus (Umeed). The result is marvelous. Ormus has the gift of foresight and vision of the other-world while Vina has the sheer force of her personality and talent. Amind these two greats, Umeed hangs on to his human desires.

Love and art are the two main chords that run through the novel. The writer himself seems to be in the process of discovery in these two matters. He keeps conclusions open. The Ormus-Vina love has all that goes into being great, yet the author allows himself to question, almost mock this greatness.

Aloud I say, You know Vina, I don’t really get it. I never have. The way you two are together. How does that work exactly.?

She laughs. Higher love, she answers. Love on a higher level. Just think of it like that. Like exaltation.

Sexuality is a key element in the relationships throughout the novel. While Ormus, maintains a ‘purity’ by not taking any partners other than Vina, she on the other hand refuses to be bound to one and is open about it. Rushdie comes very close to creating the real life pop celebrities of genius, controversies and trademark eccentricities. Vina reverses the man-woman equation:

We, Ormus and I, we were her women: he , the loyal wife standing by her philandering husband, settling for him in spite of his roving eye, his wanderlust; and I, the simultaneous wanton and long-suffering mistress, taking what I could get.

Sexuality is inextricably mingled with love. The story muses about the perfect recipe for love but leaves the puzzled unsolved. On a similar note the 'art and virtuosity' equation is explored. After the final exit of Vina it seems impossible that she can be replaced as Ormus’ muse, but Rushdie dares to replace her with Mira, perhaps indicating a continuity in art irrespective of individuals involved.

One can point to number climaxes in the novel, which contributes to the sense of constant build-up and pace. One of the most surprising climaxes is where a raving Ormus, unable to accept the death of, Vina suddenly declares the advent of new in the form of Mira after the first concert.

“Vina Apsara? Oh, I’m sorry she died.”

For this moment it seems art is bigger than love, however, Rushdie drives carefully between the narrative and allows Ormus to fade for love though his art is shown to be finally free of Vina.

Rushdie brews his magic-realism on a recipe far different from that of Marquez. While Marquez’s magic slips in quietly, inconspicuous even to the reader, Rushdie makes magic as visible and baffling as in real life. However a reader would relate more to Marquez’s characters than that of Rushdie’s. Rushdie’s world is populated by unusual, curious characters. Yet gifted and surrounded by unusual, their fate is compelling and involving.

CHOICE

Caught between

this look and that

this me and that

this word and that

this right and that

between

this star and that

this wish and that

this side and that

this life and that.

WHAT I WANT

A lot it seems.

Much more

than the due,

Perhaps.

‘Just another

nauveau free

इन को ये चाहिए

वो चाहिए

They’ll even want

the sky.’

Yes, I want

Shamelessly.

My morning tea

with soggy biscuits

dipped in the

Rising sun.

And my day

of flies and

gnats free

Walking with me.

Kadi chawal

for lunch

no burgers.

And no need

to look at the

maniacal watch.

Faint music

as the day

cools off,

more tea

some namkeen.

And with the books

All chattering away

and the pen

prancing, we could

cook a story

or two

for dinner.

YOUTH

"बहुत हुआ

अब बस

अपना सच

पाना है

बिन signpost

यूँ कबतक

चलना?

कबतक ये

बिन परिणाम

परीक्षा?

समय की

गर्भ में

कबतक अजन्में

पकना?

डराओ मत

की वह

सौम्य नहीं

romantic नहीं

painful है

कठिन भी

पाने दो

मेरा हक

है, मेरा

सच है."

INQUEST

किस ओर?

पता नहीं

चाहते क्या हो?

कुछ नहीं... सबकुछ

येही क्यों

कुछ और है?

सही, गलत?

सोचा नहीं

अब?

दिखता नहीं

अंत?

कभी नहीं...

THE BLIND ASSASSIN: MARGARET ATWOOD

If you are the sort of reader who sits with a pen to mark lines that sound interesting, don’t do it with this book, you will end up marking too much! Witticism, aphorism and humour abound here. Atwood’s sentences breathe out ideas, nothing is dead or redundant, an impossible feat for a book of 640 pages.

Vitals are straight: postmodernist historical fiction, triple-story-setting of novel within the novel and significant scoops of science fiction.

Atwood has worked out a dense pattern, without cluttering or smudging the design. She uses a variety of tools: Newspaper articles, society gossip notes, letters and notices. It creates an impression of verisimilitude no doubt, but also serves the greater purpose of breaking the monotony of prose that is bound to creep into a long narrative. Atwood has focused on saving her story from ennui. She saves the finale right upto the end where it is revealed in a crescendo. As a result, it is hard to put the book down. The author does not hide her intension for it to be so. The name of the protagonists in the novel that runs within the novel are not divulged. So a thick layer of delectable mystery is whipped up. It is like a drizzle which films the landscape of the story and contributes to its beauty. It is a question worth considering if the novel can be read as a thriller because that is the dominant emotion that it generates. However, what dims its appeal as a thriller is the detailed socio-political history and character evolution that is woven into the pattern.

The first frame of this multi-layered novel is that of a memoir being written by 82-year-old Iris. Within this appears another eponymous novel whose protagonists are referred to as merely ‘he’ and ‘she’ The third frame is of an unfinished science fiction narrated by ‘him‘ to ‘her’ and later written for a magazine.

The other pivot around which the novel quietly hinges is its endearing description of childhood and old age. In a major part of the narrative an old Iris talks to the reader through her memoir. She is physically wilted but her mind is agile. She shares asides and conspiratorial laughs with her reader striking a bond. For a woman of her age and experiences, Iris is surprisingly and convincingly, free of malice and bitterness. Her voice is of final surrender and at the same time childlike naughtiness.

“If I ever get caught in high wind my hair will all blow off like dandelion fluff, leaving only a tiny pockmarked nubbin of bald head.”

Childhood too, though ridden with death and downfall, is not deprived of its moments of sheer innocence. This part being allocated to the enigmatic character of Laura.

"Think twice, said Reenie. Laura said, Why only twice?"

Iris describes her little sister’s character as being like ‘tone –deaf’, someone who heard and saw things in a different light. Her innocence is both amusing and annoying as it is to Iris. Iris on the other hand is assigned the task of taking care of herself and her sister by her dying mother and later by her father. Not too willingly though, she must now stick by Laura for whom truth becomes increasingly difficult to decipher.

“Laura found a splotch of blood on my bedsheets and began to weep. She concluded that I was dying. I would die like Mother, She sobbed, without telling her first. I would have a little grey baby like a kitten then I would die.

I told her not to be an idiot. I said this blood had nothing to do with babies. (Callista hadn't gone into that part having no doubt decided that too much of this kind of information at once might wrap my psyche)”

While the book on one hand traces the relationship and life of the two sisters, it also on the other hand follows the downfall of two prominent houses: the Chase of Port Ticonderoga and the Griffin of Toronto. Atwood herself clarifies that the book is essentially about two things: Human sacrifice and writing. It circles around the popular notion that artist is the one who suffers and sacrifices, thus the candles on Laura’s grave, who is believed to be the author of The Blind Assassin.

Among other themes is the historic setting which covers over hundred years of Canadian history including the two World Wars, depression and communist witch hunting. Feminism is the other silent thread in the book that weaves together the women of different times and the attitude of men towards them. However, the author does not allow the issue to weigh down the narrative.

“Boats are female for Walter, as are busted car engines and broken lamps and radios-items of any kind that can be fiddled with by men adroit with gadgetry, and restored to a condition as good as new.”

The story that is narrated by the clandestine lover to his beloved also draws from real world evils like child labour, class differences and corruption. It also subtly and metaphorically builds on their own lives.

“This is how the girl who couldn’t speak and the man who couldn’t see fell in love.”

The girl who couldn’t speak would directly correspond with Iris who had to surrender to silence in her marriage and the man who couldn’t see would automatically be Alex who could not see what he was headed for ideologically. These symbols are however lost to the reader till the end since the narrative is structured like a puzzle, and can be understood only on a second reading. This brings us to the most important question: Who is the Blind Assasin? The answer is Iris herself because she is the one who ultimately “saves” Laura through the book which she writes in her name, not only making her an icon but also avenging her death.

WALK

In the thicket

I step,

deep into

bushes. Dry

dense green

spotted with

frail fancies.

But that smell

persists

of dreams

and life

in decay.

Right in your lap,

(I am teasing life)

It dares

to linger

right where

you feed,

rear your own,

it sings

its eerie lullaby.

The blossoms

giggle, and the

saplings rustle.

They always have

fun out of

our squabbles.

I search where

It comes from.

My right?

No behind,

Left? No

Above?

Its everywhere.

She reveals

quietly as

she prepares

for her siesta

“among many

of my works

Decay is one

and my

favourite, I say.”