Note on this edition: this is an electronic version of the 1999 book ...

266Demonic Texts and Textual DemonsCreator, he also develops the opposition between secular fiction and sacredscripture which is accentuated in the Jahilia episodes. These sections areframed by Gibreel Farishta’s struggle with his faltering religious identity.Gibreel has in his numerous roles established himself as the personificationof the divine. His supernatural experiences, however, begin only afterhe has lost his former faith due to a mysterious disease: Gibreel feelswrongly punished, and his protests allude to the sorrows of Job and the classicproblem of God’s cruelty. As an “anti-Job,” Gibreel is released from hissufferings only after he has renounced God. As his first act after leaving thehospital, he goes into a hotel and eats pig meat, as the palpable evidence oftransgressing the limits of his former identity. 48 There is a way of readingthe novel that follows the comparison of religion with illness: when Gibreelis cured, he also recovers from the disease of Faith. As the tormenting religiousvisions start, they are an indication of Gibreel’s failing mental health;as Gibreel accepts the reality of the supernatural, he is also described as losinghis touch with a shared reality, and falling into a psychosis. GibreelFarishta is thereby not just a “good” character as opposed to the “evil” SaladinChamcha – despite their haloes and horns, respectively. As they are describedin the beginning as falling intertwined together from the skies, sothey should be read as interrelated and complementary figures in their hybrididentities. Chamcha with his bowler hat and British accent represents adenial and break with his original identity and Indian culture; Farishta differsfrom him by his tighter bonds with his religious identity. These twocharacters are offered as starting points for the narrative which studies theeffects of transition and hybridity. The events during their migration exploreand comment on the break with the “original” (their cultural context,and their original selves as produced by this context). In an important sectiontowards the latter part of the novel the narrator makes a metafictionalcommentary on this division:Well, then. – Are we coming closer to it? Should we even say that these aretwo fundamentally different types of self? Might we not agree that Gibreel,for all his stage-name and performances; and in spite of born-again slogans,new beginnings, metamorphoses; – has wished to remain, to a largedegree, continuous – that is, joined to and arising from his past; – that hechose neither near-fatal illness nor transmuting fall; that, in point of fact,he fears above all things the altered states in which his dreams leak into,and overwhelm, his waking self, making him that angelic Gibreel he has nodesire to be; – so that his is still a self which, for our present purposes, wemay describe as ‘true’ … whereas Saladin Chamcha is a creature of selected48 SV, 28-30. Gibreel’s disease probably has its model in the illness of the famous Bombaymovie star, Amitabh Bachan; there are several common features between Rushdie’sfiction and this case (for details, see Timothy Brennan, Salman Rushdie and the ThirdWorld, 1989; cf. Seminck 1993, 24). The episode with pig’s meat has an(auto)biographical basis; Rushdie has described how he proved his new-found atheism atthe age of fifteen by buying himself a “rather tasteless ham sandwich” (“In God WeTrust,” 1985, 1990; 1992, 377). Rushdie’s biography is discussed in Weatherby 1990.