Harnessing the Currents of Textual Fluidity: Salman Rushdie's Making of East, West"
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Ever since Ayatollah Khomeini sentenced Salman Rushdie to death in 1989 for, in essence, remaking the story of the Prophet Muhammad in The Satanic Verses, Rushdie has repeatedly explored in his works how bringing newness into the world and securing the right to freedom of expression both require challenging traditional assumptions about textual purity. This theme in Rushdie testifies to the real-world implications of current efforts in textual scholarship to represent texts not as authoritative repositories of sacrosanct wisdom but as, in John Bryant’s word, “fluid” conveyors of ever-shifting intentions and meanings. This article focuses on Rushdie’s deployment of textual fluidity in his shaping of his 1994 short story collection East, West. It analyzes selected examples of his revisions by comparing the texts of the volume’s first six stories as they appear in East, West to their earlier published versions, and also by examining unpublished typescripts and proofs relating to East, West in the Salman Rushdie Papers at Emory University. By tracing the evolution of his stories through multiple versions and considering his revisions in light of his conception for East, West as a whole, we learn that Rushdie employs textual fluidity as both a multivalent literary motif and an empowering compositional strategy, often in synergistic ways that affect the work’s interpretive possibilities and yield a deeper understanding of the fluidities not only of language but also of concepts vital to identity for him and his characters, especially East, West, culture, and race.
Downloads
Article Details
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (see:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors warrant that their submission is their own original work, and that they have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. Authors also warrant that their submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone's copyright. If the submission contains material for which an author does not hold the copyright, authors warrant that they have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Indiana University the rights required by this license, and that such third-party owned material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of their submission.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
References
Bahri, Deepika. 2007. “The Shorter Fiction”. In The Cambridge Companion to Salman Rushdie, edited by Abdulrazak Gurnah, 139–151. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Baldwin, T. W. 1944. William Shakspere’s Small Latine & Lesse Greeke. 2 vols. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Beck, Rudolf. 1998. “Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Salman Rushdie’s Short Story Cycle East, West”. Anglia 116.3: 355 –38 0.
Bevington, David, ed. 1997. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Updated 4th ed. New York: Longman.
Bryant, John. 2002. The Fluid Text: A Theory of Revision and Editing for Book and Screen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
———. 2013. “Wound, Beast, Revision: Versions of the Melville Meme”. In The New Cambridge Companion to Herman Melville. Edited by Robert S. Levine, 202–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chauhan, Pradyumna S., ed. 2001. Salman Rushdie Interviews: A Sourcebook of His Ideas. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Fowler, H. W. 1965. A Dictionary of Modern Usage, revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. 2nd ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ganapathy-Doré, Geetha. 2009. “Shakespeare in Rushdie/Shakespearean Rush-d ie”. Atlantis: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 31.2: 9 –22.Gane, Gillian. 2001. “Mixed-Up, Jumble-Aya, and English: ‘How Newness Enters the World’ in Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Courter’”. ARIEL: A Review of International Eng-lish Literature 32.4: 47– 68.
Goonetilleke, D. C. R. A. 2010. Salman Rushdie. 2nd ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guerrero-Strachan, Santiago Rodriguez, and Ana Sáez Hidalgo. 2008. “The Fooler Fooled: Salman Rushdie’s Hybrid Revision of William Shakespeare’s HamletThrough ‘Yorick’”. In Native Shakespeares: Indigenous Approaches on a Global Stage.Edited by Craig Dionne and Parmita K apadi a, 73–87. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Jenkins, Harold, ed. [1982] 2000. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. London: Thom-son Learning.
Kuortti, Joel. 1997. The Salman Rushdie Bibliography: A Bibliography of Salman Rush-die’s Work and Rushdie Criticism. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mahaffey, Vicki. 1991. “Intentional Error: The Paradox of Editing Joyce’s Ulysses”. In Representing Modernist Texts: Editing as Interpretation. Edited by George Born-stein, 171–191. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Mishra, Vijay. 2012a. “Salman Rushdie, Aesthetics and Bollywood Popular Culture”. Thesis Eleven 113.1: 112 –128.
——— . 2 0 1 2 b . What Was Multiculturalism?: A Critical Retrospect. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Publishing.