فهرست مطالب

Persian Literary Studies - Volume:5 Issue: 7, Summer-Autumn 2016

Persian Literary Studies Journal
Volume:5 Issue: 7, Summer-Autumn 2016

  • تاریخ انتشار: 1395/04/18
  • تعداد عناوین: 7
|
  • Editor's Note
    Page 0

    This issue comes with changes in our web page and the addition of a group of scholars who have graciously accepted to be our advisory board members. PLSJ was a challenge in Persian studies in Iran and was faced with quite a few obstacles in these five volumes. The ministry of higher education still does not consider PLSJ as an academic journal and does not list in its approved list of journals! However, Shiraz University has been supportive from day one. and Dr Saadat, the vice-Chancellors for Research, was very helpful and instrumental in funding the journal and supporting it wholeheartedly in the ministry. The journal was not appreciated much by the Persian departments at the beginning but we have received encouragement and appreciation recently. Interestingly enough Iranian English literature scholars and students have shown much interest in writing about Persian literature. Lack of enough high quality submission, in general, is another malady of many newly founded journals which we still suffer from. We hope with a new advisory board and new aspirations to face the challenges and with the help of our readers and contributors improve the situation. Our new mission is to comparatively explore and examine literary, artistic and cultural issues, and welcome contributions with a cross-cultural, trans-national and trans-regional perspective. I would like to thank my colleagues Dr Omid Azadi who revamped the page and added the necessary information and Dr Amir Vafa who has made a popular Facebook page for the journal. I would also like to thank my other colleague, Dr Laleh Atashi as well as Dr Mostafa Abedini, who as the editors are helping me running the journal. I also appreciate Dr Massih Zekavat's help in running the review section. He has been invaluable in listing the journal in MLA Directory of Periodicals, Index Islamicus, Ulrich, JGate and WorldCat (OCLC) and a few others he is still pursuing. We are going to have a few special issues in near future, the first one being a special issue on Iranian children and young adult literature. Please submit you papers for the general issues or specific issues as they are announced.

  • Mostafa Hosseini * Pages 1-4

    Time and Its Men is a monograph about the short stories and novels of Ebrahim Golestan, one of the most celebrated figures of modern Persian Literature. Golestan (b. 1922), a modernist writer, has employed various means of expression, including journalism, story-writing, film-making, photography, and translation to articulate his thoughts. He is mostly distinguished in his successful career as a filmmaker and fiction-writer. He made his literary debut with his short stories. However, not even a single book is written on his literary legacy. According to the author “in the recent half century, a lot is written on Golestan’s films, both narrative and documentary, but about Golestan as a short-story writer or novelist, who is a brilliant writer, not a separable book is written. The purpose of the present book is to fill this gap (p. 9)”. The book, as the subtitle indicates, is a critical analysis of Golestan's short stories and novels. This well-organized book is divided into two sections. The first section, “Ebrahim Golestan's Life, Works, and his Style of Writing”, in its turn, is subdivided into four short sections: From Shiraz to Sussex, Translations, Films, and the Language and Form of Golestan’s Stories. The second section, “A Critique of his Stories,” provides critical readings of his stories Azar, the Last Month of Autumn (1948), Shadow-hunting (1955), The Stream, the Wall and the Thirsty One (1967), Tide and Mist (1969), The Ghost Valley's Treasure Mysteries or The Secrets of the Treasure of the Jinn Valley (1974), Rooster (1995). The book closes with a bibliography. In “From Shiraz to Sussex,” Asgari touches upon Golestan’s literary career. He attempts to provide both the chronological order and socio-historical background of Golestan’s literary career based on biographical sources including Parviz Jahed’s Writing with Camera. This short section, which is highly interspersed with Golestan’s ideas, is authoritative and informative. The next part, “Translations,” discusses Golestan’s translations from French (From Flaubert’s Letters) and English (including Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn) into Persian. As far as I know this is the only piece written on Golestan’s translations. It is noteworthy that Golestan was the first Iranian translator who introduced some great American novelists, like Hemingway, Faulkner, and Twain, to Persian readers. Together with Ghafari and Mehrjui, Golestan is a founding member of the New Wave of Iranian cinema. Golestan has directed two long narrative and more than sixteen documentary films. Asgari comments on Golestan’s famous narrative and documentary films as tersely as possible. The literary works of Golestan are interesting for “their experiments in narrative techniques, sentence patterns, abandonment of linear plots, and cinematic delineation of scenes and episodes.” The last section—“The Language and Form of Golestan's Stories”— is about the above-mentioned features of Golestan’s works. Also, it refers to the influence of Sa’di’s Bustan on Golestan’s minimalism. As Asghari’s critical voice is rarely heard in these short parts, they can be regarded as an introduction to the second part of the book. The second part examines Golestan’s four short story collections and his novels. They all feature a dense employment of literary language especially symbols, allegories and codes. Asgari tries to decode their furtive levels. To do so, he puts them in their historical contexts, decodes, deciphers, and analyzes them in detail. This chapter, especially the concluding section on The Ghost Valley's Treasure Mysteries and Rooster, is the most informative part of the book. The former novel is a satirical allegory and an adaptation from a scenario and the latter novella is its companion. They are both allegorical and symbolic. In addition, the Ghost’s narrative is replete with imaginative uses of cinematic techniques. This section consists of Asgari’s main contribution in his book. The book is a very neatly-organized and well-documented research on Golestan’s short stories and novels. The main argument of the book is to decipher the hidden levels of Golestan’s stories and novels. To do so, Asgari has searched a large number of sources. Also, the critical voice of the author is echoed in different parts of the book. Therefore, the book is not only a comprehensive research on Golestan’s literary works, but also a very informative one about the political atmosphere of the time. I have, however, three concerns about the book. Firstly, it ignores the influence of the American writers, including Hemingway, Faulkner, and Twain, on Golestan's style of writing. My next concern is that it is not informed by recent scholarship about Golestan's stories that includes Abbas Milani’s “The Hunter of Shadows: Golestan and Modernity”, P. Sprachman's “Ebrahim Golestan’s The Treasure: A Parable of Cliché and Consumption”, and Amirali Nojomian’s “Semiotics and the Criticism of Contemporary Fiction”. Last, the book also lacks an index. Despite these shortcomings, Time and Its Men is an instructive book and its author has succeeded in providing a new reading/understanding of Golestan’s short stories and novels. This volume is useful for students and teachers alike.

  • Yaser Farashahinejad *, Faramarz Khojasteh, Majid Puyan* Pages 5-16

    From the first commentaries of Akhundzadeh to Jamalzadeh’s introduction to Yeki Bud YekiNabud, i.e., over a period of almost fifty years, we can see a collection of a few scattered commentaries on story and novel which are rarely noticed by researchers. These scattered commentaries can be regarded as the first literary manifests of story and novel. These critiques and commentaries include subject matters that can be regarded as commonalities of writers and critics of the contemporary era. Moralism, realism and usefulness of novels are three common features of such commentaries. Historical conditions and social developments in the constitutional era provided an atmosphere that only allowed committed literature to survive. The first novels as well as theories and critiques associated with them were written in such circumstances and purposefulness of stories and novels was inevitably prioritized. Thus, in the present study, attempts are made to investigate the theoretical foundations of the first story and novel critiques in Iran from the historical point of view and show how these critiques paved the path for development of realism and realist literature in Iran.Therefore, the points addressed in this study can be regarded as an introduction to committed fiction in Iran.Keywords: story, novel, critique, theory, realism

    Keywords: story, novel, critique, theory, realism
  • Seyed Reza Ebrahimi *, Maryam Beyad Pages 17-36

    In diasporic literature the question of identity is tangled with the question of history. This study aims at discussing how Yasmin Crowther reviews the Persian tradition in The Saffron Kitchen, her autobiographical novel which is mainly set-in early 60s, Iran. The novel focuses on evoking and rewriting history by using different types of counter narratives that contrast with Iranian hegemonic discourse in the field of tradition and culture. It could be said that Crowther underlines Iran’s history during the pre-Revolutionary period and during the 1953 coup d'état and its immediate aftermaths rewrites the exclusiveness of the Persian traditional culture by focusing on the fissure and blank spots in formal representation of history. Within the gaps she re-experiences a history of confrontation and resistance against the dominant patriarchal hegemony, as well as the dominant discourse of power firmed in traditional culture. Her recalled history comprises not only Iranian cultural traditions but also the fear of oppression of people, particularly women, under the sovereignty of traditional cultural discourse. The study applies Homi K. Bhabah theories, as well as Michael Foucault's discourse and power. Thus, this paper aims to examine how Crowther has used counter narrative to distance her narrative from Islamic and political discourse, depict the image of a strong woman and to show historical changes in span of time. The outcomes indicate how the history is redefined under the light of cultural hegemony and the liminal formation of identity is shaped for women in diaspora narratives.

    Keywords: Counter narrative, History, Liminal Identity, Cultural hegemony, Discourse
  • Mohsen Hanif, Tahereh Rezaei * Pages 37-53

    Nationalist sentiments characterize the Scotish James Macpherson’s Ossianic tales and the Persian Abul-Ghasim Ferdausi’s Shahnameh. Macpherson is remembered for his role in the nationalist Gaelic revival against the cultural dominance of Great Britain and Ferdausi is credited for enlivening Persian language and culture at the time of Arab dominance. However, Macpherson’s dual position, both as a member of the aristocracy that seeks alliance with Great Britain and also as an individual with nationalistic sentiments, informs his work. On the one hand, his work quenches the thirst of common people for a national narrative and helps revive the Gaelic tradition. On the other, it abounds with the ideology of the Scottish metropolis, which seeks alliance with Great Britain and endeavors to keep at bay the threats of mounting nationalism in Scotland. Thus his work suffers a dilemma, while Ferdausi’s work is thoroughly given to nationalistic sentiments. In this article we intend to focus on the way heroes are portrayed in their relations with the Royal classes in the two works, to show the traces of two ideologically loaded concepts, namely nation and nation-state, in the formation of both works. The paper thus carries a typological comparative study of the heroes and concludes that Macpherson’s work is the product of nation-states and therefore legitimization of the status quo is an undistinguishable aspect of it. Ferdausi, on the other hand, shows consistency in his nationalistic feelings as depicted in his Pahlavans due to the fact that he lives in a time when nation is defined purely in ethnic and racial terms, allowing him to distance himself from the perspective of the status quo.

    Keywords: Firdausi's Shahnameh, Macpherson's Ossianic tales, nation-state, nationalism, typology
  • Bahee Hadaegh Pages 59-63

    Claudia Yaghoobi is an assistant professor of Persian Studies in the department of Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina. Her research concerns the literature of the Middle East, specially focusing on the Persian literary tradition. What stands out in her works is a new outlook she opens up to Persian spiritual, social, and cultural issues. Borrowing from her, I may describe this unique approach in Persian studies as “queering” the queer, that is, how she pinpoints unfamiliar, seemingly abnormal, and marginal cases, and unravels the ironic Sufi method in gaining self-awareness through self-negation. Her recently published book represents her perspective about significant concepts like subjectivity and self in Persian spiritual and socio-cultural realms. She endeavors to introduce the spirit of Persian cultural, social, artistic and religious phenomena by focusing on what I define as a de/reconstructive method where she reintroduces and redefines the cultural phenomena that have been frequently ignored. Subjectivity in ʿAṭṭar, Persian Sufism, and European Mysticism is Yaghoobi’s first book project which notably unveils the Persian Sufi figure Farid al-DinʿAṭṭar, revealing a queer image of him in both the strange way he demonstrates Sufism and the weird characters that he unexpectedly introduces as the prototypes of self-awareness. The book extraordinarily pins down the concepts of transgression, subjectivity and inclusion, putting them both in the framework of Persian Sufi culture and the Western Medieval aura. In a more inclusive attempt, the author remarkably interweaves the medieval past of a Persian poet to Western Medieval figures like Malory or Abelard, and by doing so, to modern notions of self and otherness through re-evaluating these concepts from a theoretical perspective. Being neatly organized, the book consists of six chapters “Sufism, ʿAṭṭar, and His Works,” “Modern Theory, Michel Foucault, and His Predecessors,” “Rābiʿa al-ʿAdawiyya and Margery Kempe,” “Maḥmud and Ayāz, Sufi Homoeroticism, and European Same-Sex Relationships,” “Majnūn and Lailā, and Lancelot and Guinevere” and “Shaykh Ṣanʿān and the Christian Girl, and Abelard and Heloise.” A general introductory chapter and a final concluding section are complementary to the body chapters of the book with two appendices, including an index of the names and author’s profile. In the first chapter, the author thoroughly explains the origins of Islamic Sufism and follows the history of its expansion to larger territories beyond Arabia (around 750) and to the non-Muslim countries she considers as the “Commonwealth of Islam.” Here, the author historically reviews this stable phase of the Islamic Empire and closely looks into Sufism as thriving by means of the interactions between Christian and Muslim believers leading to the formation of similar incorporated ideas. The author names the first Christian mystical writers belonging to this specific era of influence and continues to add contemporary Persian Muslim mystics including ʿAṭṭar. This chapter clearly explains ʿAṭṭar’s milieu, life, spirituality, and works, tracing his basic notion of Sufi love in Platonic and Neoplatonic conceptualizations of ephebe, i.e. beautiful human being. The author’s main point here revolves around the specific notion of love as conceived by ʿAṭṭar to be a correspondence between the earthly and the divine. She uniquely deciphers ʿAṭṭar’s notion of love through his specific philosophical understanding of the term that suggests inclusion and transgression. Regarding this, the author refers to the less discussed truth of ʿAṭṭar’s works which shows a basic pattern for marginalized social members and societal otherness. According to the author, this is explicitly manifested in both ʿAṭṭar’s outlandish characters and his language. Chapter two, which is best situated after the question of ʿAṭṭar’s main concern for the inclusion (of the societal otherness), pursues this concept from a philosophical point of view tracing the post-Enlightenment movement of Marquise de Sade (1740-1814) and his focus on naturalness which can be achieved only through transgressive acts and the inclusion of the natural. The author then keenly connects the question of transgression to Bataille’s idea of boundaries and limits. This explanation is actually made possible through the detailed description of Sade’s and Bataille’s fictional characters and their stories in works like Philosophy in the Bedroom and The Story of the Eye. The chapter, then, reads smoothly to the emergence of popular Western philosophical distinctions between subject and object, self and other leading to Foucault’s development of “transgression.” It finally concludes that both Foucault and ʿAṭṭar find liberation in transgressing boundaries. Chapters three, four, five, and six are actually the book’s main sections where the author employs a comparative close reading of selected Medieval texts from ʿAṭṭar’s works and their counterparts in Medieval Europe. She proposes that unlike the common view of social, religious, or cultural norms, and in contrast to rigid repressive policies, these stories ironically reveal queer characters who represent various kinds of transgressions. The author contends that by transgressing the laws of society, religion, or culture, these extraordinary characters are able to define an alternative subjectivity or identity for themselves. From among such transgressions, the author brings an example of gender reformation in the story of the first female Sufi in ʿAṭṭar’s Tadhkirat al-Awlīyā (Memoirs of the Saints). The story of Mahmūd and Ayāz is also surveyed to depict another queer manifestation of breaking social codes in endorsing homoeroticism. The author once again initiates a theoretical conversation between Foucault and ʿAṭṭar and concludes that this violation of standards leads to self-transcendence. The story of Majnūn and Lailā, and Shaykh Sanʿān are other emblematic narratives by ʿAṭṭar that Yaghoobi explicates in order to interpret the violation of cultural and religious prohibitions which subvert the identity of title characters and offer them inward transformation through the jouissance of taboos. The European counterpart stories by Margery Kempe and those of Lancelot and Guinevere are parallel examinations of the main idea the author explores. The concluding chapter recapitulates the philosophical discussion which I dare call “queering” the queer. By this, I mean the eccentric unveiling of the image of a deconstructive Persian mystic poet, ʿAṭṭar, and his queer characters, including outcasts, transgressors, and social pariahs who are consciously and peculiarly included by him, the Sufi poet who willingly disturbs the dominant status quo. The key question of inclusion is remarkably affirmed in this concluding chapter through the complementary discussion of more stories in ʿAṭṭar’s narratives by focusing on otherness and its relationship with self. The author concludes that although otherness normally attracts exclusion, the unique way ʿAṭṭar represents otherness, is specifically inclusive and finally transcending. Such a peculiar reading by the author is made possible through a comparative dialogue she creates between modern critics working on contemporary theories of transgression, othering, taboo, and inclusion, and the philosophers proceeding them. Although more comparative studies on Persian mysticism have already been published specifically on the question of self and transcendence, Yaghoobi’s study is distinguished by her wise employment of methodology. The second chapter on methodology, to me, is the towering achievement of the author as it reflects the comparative way of fusing literature with theory, and more importantly, the medieval past with the modern present.

  • Laleh Atashi Pages 65-70

    In “The Case for Colonialism” published in Third World Quareterly, Bruce Gilley, professor of political science at Portland State University, maintains that anti-colonial ideology has afflicted subject peoples and prevented their “faithful encounter with modernity in many places”(1). He proposes that colonialism should be recovered by “reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonizing some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch” (1). The controversial paper which calls for the return of colonialism has been termed by many as “clickbait” (Colleen Flaherty). Petitions have been made to urge The Third World Quarterly to flunk the paper and now it has been withdrawn “because of threats of violence - sparking a storm of protest”( Adam Lusher). The withdrawal notice of the paper is worth noting: “the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence. These threats are linked to the publication of this essay. Taylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay.”[emphasis is mine]. The reason for withdrawing the paper is not Gilley’s “modest proposal”, but threats to the editorial team (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2017.1369037). Throughout his article, Gilley reverts back to Enlightenment views on Progress to run his argument home in 2017. The idea of Progress is the cornerstone of the colonial discourse since it would provide “the justification for westerners to expand the geographical domain of modernity”(Norgaard, 1994, 52). Giley is moving along the same line when he cl

    aims

    The case for western colonialism is about rethinking the past as well as improving the future. It involves reaffirming the primacy of human lives, universal values, and shared responsibilities—the civilizing mission without scare quotes—that led to the improvements in living conditions for most Third World peoples during most episodes of Western colonialism. It also involves learning how to unlock those benefits again. Western and non-western countries should reclaim the colonial toolkit and language as part of their commitment to effective governance and international order. (1) The discourse used to idealize the Idea of Progress finds an echo in Gilley’s article. Gilley claims to be concerned about human well-being—never explaining what he means by “human” and how he defines “well being”; he wants to unearth the fundamental law of historical development—homogenizing the causes of improvement in the living conditions of what he terms “third world peoples”; and he supports universal values encompassing all humanity regardless of time and place. He is taking too much for granted when it comes to “universal values”, “shared responsibilities” and “benefits,” and thus his argument abounds in apriori justifications rooted in ideological axioms. It is interesting to note that Third World Quarterly that has established Edward Said Award with the cooperation of Global Development Studies Graduate Paper, should call Gilley’s article a “viewpoint essay” and “innocently” publish it as the FIRST in an issue. Ironically enough, Gilley manoeuvres boldly on the binary opposition between western self and non-western other the critique of which forms the basis of Said’s discursive analysis of orientalism. Sara Khan criticizes the empirical and historical accuracy of Gilley’s article. She believes that Gilley is biased in his selection of quotes from Berney Sèbe’s article, is inaccurate when he says decolonization was sudden, is unfair when he ignores the fact that benefits of colonialism were out of proportion with its harms, and is incorrect when he attributes the abolition of slavery to colonialism. She deems such an article dangerous because it would “perpetuate dubious justifications for U.S. military interventionism and long-term nation-building projects in distant lands with populations that resent foreign occupation.” Khan’s warning is significant when we pay attention to the way Gilley masks the ideological bias of his own writing by highlighting that of anti-colonial critique: “The origins of anti-colonial thought were political and ideological. The purpose was not historical accuracy but contemporaneous advocacy” (5). Gilley’s silence about colonial atrocities and his insistence on the benefits of colonialism for the colonized, and his dismissal of anti-colonial thought as ideological are rooted in interventionist ideology hidden behind projections and rhyming witticisms. I think the most vulnerable part of this article is where Gilley tries to indicate the “subjective legitimacy” of colonialism, by which he means people subjected to colonialism treated it as “rightful” (4). He borrows from Michael Hechter, for example, to say that alien rule is preferable to self-government. He not only reduces Hechter’s arguments to a sentence that cannot do justice to what the Hechter’s book says, but also thwarts his arguments in favour of colonialism. Hechter in the introduction explains that his book considers “the possibility that good alien governance may be better than bad native governance” [emphasis is mine] (2). Gilley’s rendition of this sentence seems biased: “Alien rule has often been legitimate in world history because it has provided better governance than the indigenous alternative” (4). Hechter does not claim that alien rule has been legitimate, he refers to terms and conditions that sound far-fetched and frankly admits that the promise of effective and fair alien rule is “cold comfort” (139). Hechter talks about possibilities: “aliens can govern more objectively—and with less corruption—than natives who are considered more likely to be compromised by their ties to local, often competing, interest groups” (139); while Gilley has already labelled alien rule as legitimate. Hechter considers the possibility of alien rule with much reserve and speaks in length about the reasons it has been dismissed in favour of national self-determination, while Gilley simply uses the adjective “better” to defend alien rule. Gilley seems to have an attitude when it comes to history. He unabashedly offers his own version of history. One of the examples Gilley mentions to show that the indigenous people welcomed the imperial intervention is James Brooke who was appointed the Rajah of Sarawak by the Sultan of Brunei. Gilley fabricates a fairy tale ending for James Brooke’s story: “order and prosperity expanded to such an extent that even once a British protectorate was established in 1888, the Sultan preferred to leave it under Brooke family control until 1946” (4). No reference is made to Syarif Masahor and Datu Patinggi Abdul Gapur’s long resistence against Brookes occupation of Sarawak. According to Giley, Sarawak “lived” happily ever after when Brooke was appointed its Rajah. Another evidence used by Gilley to prove the subjective legitimacy of colonialism is his borrowing from Sir Alan Burns, the governor of the Gold Coast during World War II; who talks of how people of the Gold Coast willingly joined the British Army. I doubt whether it is academically accurate to prove the subjective legitimacy of colonialism by referring to the legitimizing words of the colonizer. Ibhawoh analyses the reasons behind the willing participations of West Africans in the second world war and holds that the west African intelligentsia were worried about the dominance of Nazis regime because it would lead to the re-enslavement of Africans, therefore they joined the pro-British campaign. But at the same time, west Africans were questioning the double standards of the British Empire. Ibhawoh highlights the way war time propaganda “strengthened longstanding nationalist demands and hastened the emergence of African political voices in several ways” (238). Holbrook too, refers to the overwhelming role of “communications network which included radio broadcasting, information bureaux, and mobile cinema presentations” to produce voluntary war efforts but he also explains that propaganda was not enough to provide the forces that British commanders needed, therefore, “force was used to despatch young men to medical examination centres. Compulsory service regulations were used to draft men for specific job categories, including drivers, mechanics, and medical corpsmen; and in some cases young men without special job skills were dramatically 'press ganged' into military service” (359). As can be seen, Giley offers a very distorted picture of the colonial encounter between west Africa and British forces. Giley’s silence about the wartime publicity scheme and the employment of force in the process of recruitment bespeaks his ideological biases. Sir Alan Burns presents a self-congratulatory description of the loyalty of west Africans to British Empire during the second world war. The reluctance to see through the cooperation of West Africans indicates the extent to which denial can be efficient in the propagandist war time campaign. The complications of the colonial encounter need to be taken into consideration in the argument, but Gilley does not seem to be committed to academic accuracy since he wraps up the colonial plight of several former colonies in 18 pages. Manipulation and simplification of the colonial history seems to be the only way to prove the legitimacy of colonialism in the 21st century. Do I recommend the article? Yes, because it indicates how long-running ideologies can self-righteously mask themselves and survive, and how a researcher can shock the audience and rock the academic publishing market and, maybe, “boost” a journal’s impact.