This is actually a very humorous novel, with a narrator that regularly interacts with the reader (in fact, the whole novel can be understood as the narrator’s conversation with the reader; more on this later), who is so obsessed with the characters he purports to be writing about that he gets tangled in their lives – or whose effects affect their lives and vice versa (see pp. 51-52 (cf p. 178), 58, 107-109, 111, 137-138 (cf pp. 153, 158, 171-172), 156-157, 159-160, 163-165, 228-230, 233, 240, 247 (cf p. 249), 264, 288) – and that, for some bizarre reason, includes a “hunchback midget” (alive in pp. 4-5, 40; dead in pp. 43, 59, 137, 153-154, 161-165, 248-249, 292-293; for reference to another dead body see p. 171), a fictional topos which may have an explanation in “‘one of the tales of One Thousand and One Nights’” (p. 248)[1], but could also be a symptom of the narrator’s deteriorating grasp on reality if he’s insane (see p. 248; cf pp. 137, 158). I use the word if because it’s possible that Mandanipour (2009) is simply poking fun at himself – this in response to the idiot who included this false and misleading description on the flyleaf: “Dodging sinister government agencies, censors and merciless interrogators, an ingenious narrator reveals the brutal, absurd reality of present-day Iran.”
In fact, censor Mr Porfiry Petrovich (first mention p. 7) is a likely character in the story the narrator’s writing (see pp. 137-138, 162, 289-292). That, or possibly – again – the narrator’s insane. Think about it: Why is only Dara (first mention p. 10), and not Mr Sinbad (first mention p. 117), the target of assassination (pp. 218-219, 225, 262-264, 291)? After all, Mr Sinbad doesn’t give up Sara (first mention p. 4) until p. 258 – and that without any assassins creeping around him (for Petrovich’s partiality toward him see pp. 260-261); also, before the first attempt on Dara’s life (pp. 218-219, 220-223), Sara herself expresses confusion over these men (pp. 195-196). Oh, but there’s a critical detail: Jealous Petrovich (p. 290) is behind the attacks on Dara (p. 291).
Mr Sinbad, though, assumes a similar position to the narrator as Mr Petrovich: Though clearly one of the narrator’s characters (see p. 117), he, too, has a real impact on the narrator (see pp. 45-47, 130-132). Not only does the narrator reference a “young bearded administrator” (p. 45; for references to Mr Sinbad’s beard see pp. 126-128, 131, 134, 256, 258, 260, 287), but he also shares that “when I visited the General Register Office for my daughter’s birth certificate, Mr Sinbad had already occupied the seat of vice-president for public and cultural affairs” (p. 132). I mention this as an example of how his real life collides with the fictional world he’s creating.
Note, too, that the narrator claims the story he’s writing is based on a real couple that “have shared many words and sentences,” for whom “[Sara and Dara] are pseudonyms [because] I don’t want the real characters to face any problems for sins or illegal acts that they may commit in the course of my story” (p. 10). He doesn’t answer this question, however: How closely mirrored are the real and fictional couples that the real couple might suffer punishment over the narrator’s imagination?
In terms of the various font stylings, though, they’re inconsistent throughout the novel; so they obviously don’t serve as demarcations between the narrator’s story and his actual experiences. Rather, they reflect the entanglement between him and his characters. It is this inconsistency that raises the question of, for example, Petrovich being a character in the story or a real person in the life of the narrator; a deeper reading hints that, in fact, there might be two Mr Petroviches: The real one in the narrator’s life story; the fictional one that the narrator interacts with that is beyond his control (see p. 228) and, thus, has an impact on the narrator’s novel (see p. 291).
However, this intangibility makes Censoring an Iranian love story: A novel (2009) more interesting. At the same time, you can’t take it seriously. After all, the real novel was published in England; censorship (see pp. 9, 60-61, 69, 89, 91-96, 106, 113, 116, 138, 147, 162, 166, 205-206, 208, 229, 233, 236, 271), then, exists only in the context of the editing process which will not be anything like what a writer might experience in Iran, this regardless of how the narrator wants us to believe it happens (see pp. 6-9, 31-38, 89-96, 144, 147-149, 205; for his crossed-out sentences that inference Mr Petrovich see pp. 1, 12, 14, 19, 29, 39, 41, 53, 58, 60, 65-66, 88, 102-103, 109-111, 114, 137, 144, 146, 155, 160, 166-167, 171-172, 175-176, 181, 183, 185-187, 189, 191, 193-195, 201, 206, 208, 217-218, 222-223, 225-226, 233-234, 236, 239, 247, 252-253, 259, 263, 269-274, 276, 279, 281, 284-285, 287-289; for how he thinks Mr Petrovich will respond to his work see pp. 39, 41, 44, 54, 57, 60, 66, 136, 215, 281-283, 285, 289-290; for his actual conversations with Mr Petrovich see pp. 34-38, 85-87, 139-142, 243-245, 248-249; for his imagined conversations with Mr Petrovich see pp. 51, 64-65, 136, 138, 165, 170-171, 173, 236, 260-261, 274, 287-288, 290-292; for his dream of Mr Petrovich see pp. 137-138; for other references to Mr Petrovich see pp. 7-8, 30, 33, 38-39, 42, 54, 58-60, 63, 67-69, 73, 106, 112-113, 134, 138, 143, 145-147, 150-151, 155-156, 162, 166, 169, 205, 228, 242, 245-246, 249-250, 271, 284, 291). That kind of meta-analysis, though, requires reading one of Shahriar Mandanipour’s novels in the original language, this as a test of the narrator’s claims.
If, on the other hand, Mandanipour (2009) is – again – poking fun at himself, then the narrator can be read as a stand-in for Shahriar Mandanipour to talk about the craft of writing, how he creates his characters, his thought processes, his involvement with the characters, etc. – what can be called the conversation with the reader. This position is more easily supported, though, if parallels exist between the narrator and Shahriar Mandanipour (see pp. 5-6, 10-11, 30-31, 45-47, 98-99, 205, 240, 242-244). In fact, Mandanipour (2009) references himself (see pp. 60-61).
Beyond that, Mandanipour (2009) presents repeating motifs for the ghost of the famous poet who talked about wine (p.150) “seven hundred years ago” (pp. 57, 110, 120-122, 150, 248)[2], as well as the discussion, embodiment, and historical book referencing the romance epic of Khosrow and Shirin (pp. 20-27, 65-66, 102-109, 113, 116, 188, 213, 272-273, 282-283). Jabar ibn-Jafri (first mention p. 50; for reference to his student days see p. 73), “who sells talismans and magic” (p. 174), also reappears in the narrative (pp. 49-50, 122-125, 260) and in the narrator’s real life (p. 174; cf 180); of interest, though, is that while Dara pretends to be a peddler to give Sara The Blind Owl (pp. 14-15), there is also the representation of poet “‘Mr N V Win’” who possesses an “old handwritten” copy (p. 102) of Khosrow and Shirin (see pp. 101-108). Finally, there are also at least two recurring visuals: Dara’s handkerchief which the narrator mentions several times (pp. 41, 115, 137) before explaining it (p. 291); minor references to carpet and snow (pp. 140, 249) and the colors azure (pp. 140, 272) and indigo (pp. 249, 272).
Anyway, I really liked Mandanipour (2009)’s Censoring an Iranian love story: A novel! It’s a great story, funny and interesting. Oh, and there are 23 numberless chapters.
[1] So I read these two chapters in The book of the thousand nights and one night (Anonymous, 2005/2003/1901, Vol. 1, 10th Ed. (Delhi Ed.), Trans. from Arabic by John Payne, Project Gutenberg [Ebook No. 165] (London), full text available online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8655): “Nouredin Ali of Cairo and his son Bedridden Hassan.”; “Story of the hunchback.” However, neither tale gives the specific detail of the hunchback being a midget, though the second story fits better with the repeating motif of Mandanipour (2009)’s “the hunchback midget” (pp. 4-5, 40, 43, 59, 137, 153-154, 161-165, 248-249, 292-293), at least in terms of its reappearing dead body (pp. 43, 59, 137, 153-154, 161-165, 248-249, 292-293) – except that in “Story of the hunchback.,” he turns out not to have actually died (The Tailor’s Story, ‘Story of the barber’s sixth brother’).
“Story of the hunchback.,” though, starts with the main story, followed by subsections that mostly revolve around the stories of the accused trying to win favor from the King to spare their lives for the presumed death of the hunchback. Yet, after the main story, the hunchback isn’t mentioned again until the section The Tailor’s Story. – essentially a recounting of what the barber shared about his brothers’ lives – specifically in the subsections ‘The barber’s story.’ (last para.), ‘Story of the barber’s first brother.’ (gives a back story on the hunchback), and ‘Story of the barber’s sixth brother.’ (toward the end when the barber reappears and revives the hunchback, with the King and accused as witness).
However, as the tailor claims that the barber “returned to Baghdad [and] found my brothers dead” (The Tailor’s Story., ‘Story of the barber’s sixth brother.’), the hunchback in the main story is unlikely to be related to the barber; however, the barber himself makes that claim uncertain: “The hunchback’s head in his lap, [he] looked at his face and laughed … “O silent man, explain thy words to us.” “O King of the age,” replied the barber, “by the munificence, there is yet life in this hunchback”” (The Tailor’s Story., ‘Story of the barber’s sixth brother.’). Given this ending, then (with the bringing back to life of the hunchback who’s been ““dead since yesterday”” (The Tailor’s Story., ‘Story of the barber’s sixth brother.’)), is it really surprising that the narrator at the end of Mandanipour (2009) runs from the “hunchback midget” to “get to my house and lock the door from the inside . . .” (p. 293)?
Of course, the only thing missing in Mandanipour (2009) is how “the hunchback midget” ends up at Dara’s house (pp. 292-293). This is different from “Story of the hunchback” because, in the main story, we’re privy to the details of the hunchback body’s travels from place to place; more, everyone involved in those trespasses except for the tailor’s wife is brought before the King, but, in the end, they’re extravagantly rewarded as a result of a third party, the barber (The Tailor’s Story., ‘Story of the barber’s sixth brother.’), who’s actually entangled with the tailor’s life (The Tailor’s Story.).
Finally, the tailor, like the narrator in Mandanipour (2009), is the main storyteller of another person’s story, much the way Mandanipour (2009)’s narrator is for Dara and Sara. So that’s another aspect that makes “The story of the hunchback.” fit more with Mandanipour (2009) than “Nouredin Ali of Cairo and his son Bedridden Hassan.”
Note: In “Nouredin Ali of Cairo and his son Bedridden Hassan.,” the hunchback, though he assumes a minor role, is inveigled by the Sultan to marry a woman despite a brothers’ compact with God concerning her. But whether or not that hunchback has any relation to the one(s) in “The story of the hunchback.” is unknown. On the other hand, what “Nouredin Ali Cairo and his son Bedridden Hassan.” shares in common with “The story of the hunchback.” and Mandanipour (2009) is the physical characterization of the hunchback as unseemly, etc.
[2] According to the narrator, “shahnehs [were in charge of, among other things,] breaking wine casks [see p. 285] and taking the wine-drinkers to be flogged” (p. 120), the latter of which is why the ghost got their attention (p. 121).
No comments:
Post a Comment