In his essay, "Imaginary Homelands", Rushdie talks about how human beings do not possess the power to retain everything that they have perceived; they are only able to retain fragments. From the tone of the essay, it is evident that Rushdie is trying to defend the work of the Indian writer in exile (himself). He argues that the fragmentation of memory is what makes it useful to literature, because it glorifies each object/person/entity and makes them appear like symbols. I found this particularly interesting. Perhaps Aurora's paintings serve a purpose for Rushdie which he feels strongly about. It is possible that he tried to draw parallels between paintings and literature. Aurora's paintings are sometimes mimetic, e.g when she went amongst “open-mouthed strikers whom she sketched at high speed as they picketed, whored and drank.” In such artwork, she represents realities that are shared by many. Other times, her work is very individualistic and represents her own reality. That particular fact does not discredit her artwork. This is the idea that Rushdie also engages with in his essay. He states that, "...my India was just that: 'my India', a version and no more than one version of all the hundreds of millions of possible versions." He alludes to the idea that the point of literature is not just to describe. It is not just to present one fixed narrative, but to present possibilities and realities that are your own. He exemplified that particular idea/quality through Aurora.
No comments:
Post a Comment