Salman Rushdie on Beauty, Sex, and Other Demons

The presence of Salman Rushdie in Romania was the publishing event of the year. ELLE had a conversation with the celebrated author of The Satanic Verses. The topic was his latest novel, The Enchantress of Florence, published by Polirom Publishing House.

Interview by Mihaela Frank

Published by ELLE Romania in January 2010

Question: Mr. Salman Rushdie, the men in your novels - especially in your latest, The Enchantress of Florence - are big dreamers. Are you a dreamer?

Salman Rushdie: I think I am. I have to be. Any person who writes books has to be a dreamer. I'm not sure if "dream" is the right word, but rather "imagination", which you transform into something concrete. Everything has to start with small pieces of smoke in your head. In the case of my novel, there was a problem that needed to be solved: the two locations were very far apart from each other - both in space and time. So the dream plan is to build a connection with something very far away in time and space. It became the way I built this bridge between the spatiotemporal gaps in the novel. And of course, in dreams, all kinds of things can happen that cannot happen in reality - for example, you could fall in love with your great-aunt and it wouldn't seem wrong.

Question: What do you dream about?

S.R.: Me? What's interesting from my point of view is that when I write a book, I use all my imagination in the act of writing, so I don't dream much. Or my dreams become very mundane - for example, I wake up in the morning dreaming that I'm reading the newspaper or taking a walk. When I write, especially a book like this one, which is so connected to the power of imagination, my dreams simply disintegrate. I have writer friends who often introduce their dreams into their books. For example, American playwright John Patrick Shanley seems to have the most extraordinary dreams - every day he writes down what he dreamed the night before; I want his dreams too! They're much better than mine, which are not interesting at all.

As for life dreams, what can I say? I consider myself lucky in the sense that I have been able to construct the life I wanted, as I wanted it. I wanted to be a writer and I wanted to live a life of the mind, of the imagination. I couldn't have asked for more than to live the life I wanted to live. Of course, there were obstacles, but they always exist in any field.

Question: The Seductress of Florence, more than any other of your books, glorifies feminine beauty and its extraordinary power. Do you believe that beauty is a woman's strongest weapon?

S.R.: What interested me was to paint a combination of circumstances. What was happening to women at that time, when the idea of physical beauty, of physical attraction, was linked to the idea of occultism, of magical powers... What does one have to do with the other? If we look at the paintings of the Renaissance - the period I describe in the book - we see that the image of the witch has changed. Fifty years ago, the witch was portrayed as ugly, with a horrible face, a hunchback, etc. But then, because Renaissance artists were very attracted to ancient Rome and Greece, they went back to the past and discovered stories of witches who were captivatingly beautiful. And suddenly, the image of the witch changes. Instead of being a hideous creature, she becomes a beautiful young woman.

This is how the connection between physical beauty and witchcraft is created. You know that there was a world that strongly believed in magic. Well, I thought: if there was such a person with captivating beauty, how would she feel knowing that the world believed her to be a witch? Of course, at first, this seems to increase her power and make her more respected, which initially happens to Qara Köz in the novel: people believe she is a saint and so her power grows, and she is adored and venerated in the city.

But then the world begins to believe that she is a witch, and historically this accusation is very dangerous. Many women have died as a result of this accusation. And I thought: even in a historical period when women are revered for their beauty, it has a potentially deadly effect because a small change in public attitudes is enough for people who adored you yesterday to come and burn you tomorrow. So I wanted to write about women who negotiate this path, where physical beauty is both a power and a weakness at the same time. Beauty increases their power but also the danger they are in.

Question: And nowadays, do you consider beauty to be an equally powerful weapon?

S.R.: Of course, it is powerful, of course, it opens doors, but it is also transient. That's the problem: no matter how beautiful you are, there is always the next beautiful face after you. So I believe that, in the end, the question is whether you possess something more than that. If beauty is all there is, then it is tragic. If there is more, in the end, that "more" takes over. But there is no doubt that extreme beauty has great power over the world.

Question: I heard that your closest friends are women. Why is that? How do you explain it?

S.R.: It's true. I think it's because I grew up in a predominantly female family. I don't have any brothers, only three younger sisters. Even in the rest of my family, I have more aunts than uncles and more female cousins than male cousins. It's a very feminine world in which I grew up. And these women are not exactly quiet, reserved, or restrained; they are very ambitious, accomplished, with very strong opinions, and... very talkative. So I grew up surrounded by strong female figures. I guess that's how I became so comfortable in the presence of women. Most men don't know what to do in a room full of women, but I feel at ease. About 80-90% of my friends are women. And I enjoy the company of women. There's nothing wrong with that.

Question: In your novels, love is an overwhelming force. Is it the same in your personal life, or is it just literature?

S.R.: I am a romantic person, I believe. Perhaps less so now than I used to be, but still romantic. There's a certain idea about love that I've struggled with in two or three books. The first time I wrote about it was in The Ground Beneath Her Feet. Love may be a less romantic phenomenon than we conventionally think. We attach a lot of other ideas to love, such as faithfulness, longevity, and such things. But there's a moment in The Ground Beneath Her Feet when the character Vina tells Ormus, the great love of her life: "You're the only man I'll ever love; but do you really think you're the only man I'll ever sleep with?"

I was struck by the idea that perhaps love, which is indeed a very powerful force, is not tied to the ideas we associate with it, such as longevity or faithfulness. Maybe love can't last a long time, maybe it's a fleeting but intense feeling; maybe love isn't associated with faithfulness. Our ideas make love seem lasting, dangerous, in any case not as comfortable as people would like it to be. This beautiful fairy tale of love is very convenient, but I think it's actually very dangerous, uncomfortable, and difficult to navigate. I'm talking about passionate love, which is very complicated - there's a lot of darkness and a lot of light in it. That's the idea I tried to explore.

In The Enchantress of Florence, Qara Köz is a girl for whom the idea of love is dirty, given the circumstances of her life, so she often seems to make selfish choices rather than choices influenced by love. And in the only moment in the book when she truly falls in love, with Argalia, it almost surprises her. I think they're both surprised by love because they've both had pretty hard lives and have had to make selfish decisions. Suddenly, they find themselves in a situation where they're making choices against their own interests and wonder what's happening. I also wanted this to be a part of the story: someone whose life has been dominated by the idea that love is more important than survival and that if you find the right person, you must love them. Such a person is surprised by the feeling of love. When love happens, they don't understand why they're behaving the way they are. I believe it's something real, a universally valid thing: when it happens, it happens.

But I wanted it to happen in this book to people unfamiliar with the concept, who had not lived such a life, and then it's even more shocking...

Question: In this novel, there is also a very interesting character: Queen Jodha, the imaginary wife of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. She is the perfect woman, perfect mistress, and ideal conversation partner, with a brilliant mind and overwhelming warmth.

S.R.: Only she, of course, eventually gets out of control...

Question: Yes, but that's not what I meant. None of Akbar's real wives can compare to her. So I want to ask you: can the perfect woman only be imaginary?

S.R.: Yes, I really believe that. I think there is nothing perfect in this world (it's true for men too, of course). Her perfection is limited only by the emperor's ability to imagine it. As for Jodha, it's very strange that in India, she is still considered Akbar's queen. It's a legend that has been imprinted in people's minds, especially through movies. When you tell people that, in fact, this queen did not exist historically, they don't believe you because the myth is so deeply ingrained. People still believe that Akbar fell so in love with this Hindu princess that he did not force her to convert to Islam, that it was a perfect romantic match, and that he accompanied her to her Hindu ceremonies as proof of his tolerance and openness, even though he was an Islamic king. Everyone will tell you this story. But it's not true, it never happened! When I started working on this book, I believed it was true too. Then, when I started researching, I was shocked. It's just fiction? Yes, that's the truth!

Then I thought how strange it is that practically all Indians believe she existed in reality. And that gave me the idea that Akbar has that Pygmalion-like power to bring someone to life with the force of his genius and mind. After I published the book, many Indians still wondered, why did Rushdie write this? Of course, she existed! The fantasy is so deeply rooted that everyone believes in her existence. In the same year that I published The Enchantress of Florence, a new film about Akbar and Jodha was released in India, with great Indian actors!

Question: You wrote this novel during a difficult time in your life - I refer to the divorce from your fourth wife. Did this make writing more difficult or, on the contrary, did working on the book help you get through this moment easier?

S.R.: It made the writing task more difficult because there were many unpleasant things happening during that time... But I am a very disciplined writer, one of the things I possess is the ability to sit at my desk and do my job. In all these years, I have learned to shut the world outside and focus on work. There was pressure, maybe there was a time when daily life wasn't as pleasant, but now, in the end, after finishing writing the book, I realize that the divorce was not part of the process. That is, I remember the book, I remember that it was pleasant to write and that it was pleasant to read all the books I read for research. So yes, maybe it was a way to detach myself from other unpleasant things happening in my life then.

Question: The Enchantress of Florence is your book with the most explicit sexual content. Why this change? Was the world you evoked really so sensual, or did you exaggerate?

S.R.: I haven't exaggerated anything. I discovered that both worlds - the Renaissance and the Mughal court - were very open when it came to sensuality and sex. These worlds had a lot in common. For example, courtesans emerged as very powerful figures; then, both worlds were extremely interested in erotic arts, there were many manuals, and of course, the subject of magic was also common. Magic was considered something that should be used to enhance sexual abilities.

Question: The connection between eros and magic was known in those times...

S.R.: Yes, they were at the center of both cultures. If that's the case, then I had to write about it. It's true that there hasn't been as much sexuality in my previous books as there is here. But this time, I thought I had to write about this thing that is so common to both cultures, I had to reveal it. And one of the things I didn't want to do in this book was to write about the past in the idealized way it was described until recently. In books about the Renaissance, they write about kings, philosophers, great ideas, masterpieces, etc. But ordinary life is not like that. I thought I had to look down, from these rarefied heights, turn to ordinary lives and write about them. I think it was a deliberate choice to write much more explicitly sexual than usual. It was one of the challenges - and any new book involves different kinds of challenges. But it was just a response to what I found when I researched, it wasn't like I set out to write a sexy book. I simply discovered a very sexually explicit world and thought: OK, if that's what it was about... then let's show it as it was!

Question: I'd like to turn to another theme in your books, namely the relationship between the East and the West. Did you intend, with this book, more than with the others, to change Western stereotypes about the Eastern world?

S.R.: I think all my books try to do that. The connection between the East and the West, for me, is an internal one, not an external one. It's inside me. So I always naturally gravitate toward stories that contain these connections. I don't plan from the beginning to destroy some stereotypes. But I think that the fact that I went back 400 years in the past, to the beginning of the West's discovery of the East, allowed me to write about how these worlds saw each other. You know, sometimes if you go back to the origins of something, you can find the answers to some present-day questions. That's exactly what I want to illustrate by the idea that we are each other's dreams - Westerners and Easterners. Of course, the dream can turn into a nightmare, it can turn into conquest and imperialism, violence, etc., but I didn't want to avoid the darkness either. The end of the book is a melancholic one: Akbar imagines that his project of tolerance and civilization will fail and that it will turn against him and divide people. I think that if you write about a moment in the history of the world characterized by tolerance, you have to emphasize that it's just a moment. Of course, it should be said that the opposite is also just a moment. That is, the other periods, characterized by intolerance, hatred, and violence, are also just moments. Human life never stands still, it's always changing.

Question: Are you optimistic about the future of relations between the West and the East?

S.R.: No, in fact, I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic. What I believe is that this relationship is going through very difficult periods now, but there have been and will be good periods as well. I think it is a bad period now. On both sides of the fence. I think, for example, that Westerners do not realize how much the Islamic radicalism phenomenon oppresses Muslims themselves. It is a dialectic both internal and external. Those who suffer the most from radicalism are Muslims. Even today in Iraq, for example, 99% of crimes are committed by Muslims against other Muslims.

So yes, now is an unfavorable time, no doubt about it. It's a little better than it was during the former American leadership - people are talking in a somewhat more civilized language than before, but it's still a black period. I remember that it wasn't always like this. And that was even during my lifetime! If you look at the Islamic world of the 50s-60s, cities like Beirut, Damascus or Baghdad were much more open - intellectually, artistically, and creatively.

Question: Indeed, many Muslim intellectuals claim that the Islamic world was not as intolerant and rigid as before.

S.R.: Yes, it was absolutely different. There was more openness to disputes, speeches, and arts. Sometimes people ask me: do you think it is possible for Islam to tolerate a free society? I tell them not only is it possible, but it has happened in the past, even in my lifetime. I remember such times, no more than 40-50 years ago. And that shows that it is possible. Most people in these countries do not agree with the limitations imposed by extremists, and so it is plausible that these things will change in the future. The world is a wheel and everything comes around.

Question: Another theme of your novels - prominently present in The Enchantress of Florence - is that of the expat vs the native. Of the one who travels, as opposed to the one who stays a lifetime in the place where he was born. You yourself are a foreigner, a traveler. Who is richer, the one who stays at home or the one who travels the world and experiences it?

S.R.: I think both types of people have mixed feelings about this. Sometimes you envy those who have done what you have not, who have spent their lives in one place and fully belonged to that place and community. And other times you think: what do they know? They haven't seen anything of this world. I think people who have decided to stay have the same mixture of superiority and envy. We are divided. Clearly, my life has been a complicated journey, and I realize that this has offered me many things, especially as a writer. It has given me a wealth of subjects, the opportunity to place my stories in different places and to know the life of those places, to be able to write about them.

Sometimes, however, I wonder how my life would have been if, at the age of 14, I had not gone to boarding school in London but stayed in Bombay and grown up there. You are always fascinated by the road not taken. For me, this is clearly the crucial point of my life: the age of 13 and a half, when I could have taken one path or the other. I chose to leave. No one forced me to go to England, my parents left the decision to me. I passed the exam and got in, but even after I got in, they said to me: you decide; if you don't want to go, you don't have to go, stay here and it's okay. I have often thought about that boy who said, "No, I really want to go." I tried to understand what made me say that because it wasn't that I wouldn't have been happy at home. On the contrary, I loved my life in Bombay. Yet I said I want to leave. I don't blame my parents, I made the decision. This makes me think that there is a spirit of adventure in me that manifested itself at that moment and changed my life. I have now reached a point where I realize that you cannot regret your life. I am happy with the life I have had.