A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed...
No matter what Mr. Ed the talking horse said on his TV show, the audience laughed. For instance when he said, “There are a lot of things in this world that can't be explained,” everyone laughed because they thought he meant talking horses were unexplainable, but there he was a talking horse. Get it? Ha ha! But when Shakespeare says, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” --which is exactly what Mr. Ed said-- no one thinks it’s funny. Instead folks get all somber and ponderous, and look down their noses at people who don’t know which play that line is from.
A Middle Eastern writer in America is Ed the talking horse. No matter what he/she says, it’s taken in the context of the Middle East as seen on TV. So if Mohammad Alzahabi wrote, “Sometimes I attempt to kill in my dreams. But do you know what happens? For instance I hold a gun. For instance I aim at a bland, quietly interesting enemy. Oh, I press the trigger all right, but one bullet after another feebly drops on the floor from the sheepish muzzle,” the reader (and the FBI) may see a failed assassination fantasy. But if it turns out that Vladimir Nabokov wrote the passage (which he did), then suddenly the FBI alert is cancelled and the context becomes a universal Freudian exploration into sexual dysfunction.
So without further ado, I will spend my remaining 200 words on a passage from my Freudian novel about an Iranian baseej who lusts after his own sister; after all she’s the only young woman he’s mahram enough to look at. The baseej thinks if he fucked his sister just once he would get it out of his system forever:
“It is improper to describe making love to one’s sister. Does it suffice to say it got “great,” and it became even greater?
‘Are you sore?’ I whispered. ‘Of course I’m sore! she said. ‘But you better not stop. If you stop, I’ll kill you,’ Faati told me. She would have to, I realized later. In a way—if I had stayed in love with her—she would have been the death of me; we would have been the death of each other
‘There!’ she cried, when she felt me shaking. ‘There, there,’ she said, soothingly. ‘That’s it, that’s all she wrote,’ she murmured. ‘That’s the end of it. Now we’re free. Now that’s over…”
By the way, the above passage from “my” novel is totally plagiarized from John Irving’s The Hotel New Hampshire. All I did was change the sister’s name from Franny to Faati. But the English reader allows Irving to explore incest as an individual human activity, a place I’m not allowed to go without dragging my whole country into bed with the siblings. And what if I wrote about Franny instead of Faati? Then America would say, I would allow Dr. Irving the literary gynecologist to feel my vagina, but what does this Middle Eastern horse want with my gentials? Which is why Middle Eastern novelists writing in English stick to their own sisters.
Artwork: Abu Said Ubaud Allah Ibn Bakhitshu. Adam and Eve, Painting. 1294. Cleveland Museum of Art
Very true. Well put. Thank you for sharing, brother.
Ari jan, FBI does not get alerted. That is a totall lie. Same as changing words/authors. Americans are generally not as stupid we have lied about them. The Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are smart too.
Iranians living abroad should try to break away from the nonesense of conspiracy theories (and absolute lies) that they picked up by education and from the environment they were raised in.
By the way, I still watch "Mr. Ed" and love every episode. I don't remember if this TV series was ever shown in Iran way back.
Bavafa,
Info on media surveillance:
"EPIC [Eectronic Privacy Information Center] is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information about the agency's surveillance of social networks and news organizations.
In February 2011, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the agency planned to implement a program that would monitor media content, including social media data. The proposed initiatives would gather information from "online forums, blogs, public websites, and messages boards" and disseminate information to "federal, state, local, and foreign government and private sector partners." The program would be executed, in part, by individuals who established fictitious usernames and passwords to create covert social media profiles to spy on other users. The agency stated it would store personal information for up to five years."
A couple of years ago I emailed the Department of Homeland Security and asked them what sort of speech on the internet triggers alerts. They did not reply until after EPIC filed the lawsuit. Even then DHS referred me to their PR department which has not replied.
So what? What does Ms. Shaghayegh have to do with Mr. Goodarzi? LOL! You want to talk about security agencies and organizations challenging their actions, well, let's talk about it. This would be an interesting topic.
BTW, DHS does not answer the President either. Secondly, your loaded question cannot even be answered by the most qualified attorneys on the subject of the First Amendment. That's why there is always a Supreme Court.
Side note: Never mind, dis Justice Scalia was oova-oovaing in a recent Charlie Rose program as to why everyone brought their cases before the Court. Hello? Anybody up there? LOL! He was suggesting to the citizens that they change the laws (and the Constitution) through the Congress. "Leave us alone," I sensed he was crying out. hahahaha...
I read your blog and I understood, OK, if we change the text of a supposedly famous writer and put instead Moslem Basij did this and that, FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies would or could be alarmed, let alone start monitoring you (or wohoever).
Let me see. Well, folks in the literary circles -- who understand literary work! -- won't judge. They probably are already familiar with the text of the original text so that they would speculate that either the person is plagiarizing or trying to be funny, which I suspect would be the latter.
Then comes the ordinary folks (non-literary folks). I say they would not even notice the change. I am also suggeting the FBI would know too, even though the FBI operator most likely is not a literary folk.
By the way, I am not challenging your assumption. You may have experienced a situaiton. I am saying in my case none of this happens. This is my experience in this "U.S. of America" as mamal amrikayee used to say. Do you know of a case?
Fine, a jackass at DHS (and/or their PR officer) didn't answer you. I get it. Big deal, but be fair. The question was ridiculous. In case of speech on the Internet, I suspect the DHS would act however they deemed necessary on a case-by-case basis. Then, if they really phack it up and jail you because you plagiarized, your case would really call for an examination. I am sure ACLU or alike would pick it up. HTat's how it works. It really works.
BY the way, I don't see any problem in the DHS announcement of Feb 2011. That is needed. As a person who runs few social sites, I am aware of abuse by false users.
Nice writing. Thank you. I believe all problems are because Baha'i brothers and sisters get married.
P.S. marg bar amrika!
He of the soft Left has to feel like the victim otherwise he is not happy. I wonder why so many have moved to the US.