Salman Rushdie, Shame, “About movers”, 1983

The text under analysis is an extract taken from Shame, a novel written in 1983 by Salman Rushdie. The novel is set in a non existing city of Pakistan, Q. The main character of the novel is Omar Khayyám Shakil, a man who doesn’t know who his parents are (he has three mothers).

As for the title of the extract, it provides the reader information about the topic of discussion of the text: in particular, the text is going to be about “movers”. The word “movers” may refer to the protagonist’s experience: indeed, the protagonist’s mothers allow him to leave Q as a birthday present. Also, what chatches the reader’s attention is the word “about”. It may remind the reader of the Latin tradition of naming written works after their main subject (e.g. “de ira”, “de architectura”, “de re publica”, etc.). Since the text focuses on a single subject, it is likely to be developed as an argumentative text.

Considering the layout, the text is made of four paragraphs: each corresponds to a sequence with a specific function.

The first paragraph is opened by a first person speaking voice. The point of view about movers is made clear before telling about the problem itself: it is the protagonist’s point of view, which is linked to his personal experience. Omar immediately informs the reader about it: he moved from India to Pakistan (where his family still lives “against his will”, as he says in the text) and later England.

It is interesting to focus on the lexical choices. Omar uses words such as “immigrant business” and “emigrant”, but also “newcomer” and “mohajir”. “Immigration” indicates the movement of non-native people into a Country in order to settle there, while “to emigrate” means to leave one place or Country, especially one's native Country, in order to settle in another. However, the word “newcomer” deals with one’s point of view when he arrives into a new Country: it has to do with the difficulties he has to face as someone who meets the Other. On the other hand, the word “mohajir” is an Urdu name with a specific meaning: it indicates immigrants (and their descendants) who move from other parts of South Asia to Pakistan. Besides the difference of meaning, it is interesting to point out the use of different languages: “immigrant” and “emigrant” are English words derived from the Latin language; “newcomer” is an English word as well, while “mohajir” is an Urdu word. The use of languages reveals the protagonist’s sense of belonging to more than one culture.

Back to the paragraph, its function is to introduct the thesis. In particular, the protagonist’s thesis about the “immigrant business” is that it has to do with the force of gravity and with the ability to fly. The comparison is quite unusual and the reader expects an explaination in the following paragraphs. However, he/she can make an hypotheses and think about why Omar compares immigration to the force of gravity. Both of them deal with a core: one’s homeland/native Contry in the first case, the Earth’s core in the latter. The comparison may deal with one’s sense of belonging to a Country (an already introduced matter) and his/her attachment to it.

The following paragraph is opened by the narrator’s voice, who informs the reader about his next move: he will now explain the comparison immigration-gravity. The hypotheses was correct: indeed, the comparison deals with one’s sense of belonging. In particular, Omar speaks of one’s roots which link him/her physically and ideally to a place. The narrator poses the reader an interesting problem: people may feel attached to a place, but the reason behind it is unknown and unexplainable. Roots are a “myth”, something unreal and fictitious. In particular, Omar shares his personal experience with the reader. His roots and sense of belonging were broken by his father, since he sold the house where homar spent his childhood.

The third paragraph provides an example of the opposite of gravity and belonging. Omar tells about anti-gravity and, by extension, about anti-belonging. The function of the third paragraph is, therefore, to introduce the antitheses.

The narrator makes another comparison and now matches anti-gravity and anti-belonging. The comparison is carried out by finding a similarity. In particular, both concepts imply the idea of flight: the absence of gravity makes objects float in the air, while anti-belonging makes people “float”/“fly” around the world. Also, Omar tells the reader that both concepts imply freedom of moving: what makes them different is that they reach freedom in different ways (they do it physically or mentally).

In the following sentences, the speaking voice goes deeper and explains the concept of anti-gravity. In particular, he provides information from a scientific point of view, and also provides examples of what anti-gravity would cause if it actually existed: it will be the cause of a huge crisis from economy to travel. It would also affect everyone’s life and thinking: it would make everyone “movers”. It is also interesting to point out the fact that anti-gravity is accepted by people and science as a valid and clear concept, even if it doesn’t actually exist. On the other hand, anti-belonging, which is likely to be felt by people, could be difficult to understand.

The fourth and last paragraph provides the reader the conclusion of the argumentation. It is opened by a lexical specification: the narrator makes clear that it is different when a single person or a whole nation move. The first case brings to a migration, the second to a secession. However, the narrator here means migration and secession as a mental moving, since he tells about hopefulness and “invisible suitcases”.