The Relationship between Language Functions and Character Types in Noon val-Ghalam by Jalal Al Ahmad

Abstract

Abstract

Making harmony among language functions of story characters with their character types is one of the characteristics and advantages of modern and successful story writing. In traditional fictional literature in Iran (prose and verse), this point is not considered important and story characters, generally, speak in the voice of narrator or writer since there is the narrators statement on their speech, they are not the representative of their class and character type. Not paying attention to this subject, causes disorder in either making supposition of reality or personifying, which are both important principals of story telling.

This study views from this point the story of Noon val-Ghalam of Jalal Al Ahmad who is a contemporary writer. The methodology is qualitative, and data collection is based on contentâanalysis and document- analysis. As Al Ahmad was one of the Iranian contemporary writers and was familiar with western and Iranian writers, it is expected that the language and way of describing story characters he made, be based on their social classes. But this study, by stating different proofs, shows that this writer ignores the relationship necessary for language functions and character type among characters in the story and because of the imposition of his knowledge, statement and political and social view, the independence of the protagonists in his story is not well-considered.

 The inflection of political and social thoughts of each writer among his works, is not a shortfall by itself, but representing of speeches in protagonists, in the way which is not in harmony with their characters, underestimates them as an instrument for specific social and political representatives. This not only displays the character like a personified ideas, but also distructs processing of fictional dialogue as an important element in storytelling . Since in each language people from different social groups, use almost the same vocabularies that identifies and belongs to their own group and class,it is suitable that this matter of fact be used in story works that are reflection of the society. But Al Ahmad by stating the intellectual and wise mentioning from tow "Mirza Benvis" in the story those who are commonly illiterate people and just they write daily letters and some simple documents, he refuses paying attention to this point. For example "Mirza Asadollah" the protagonist, in a part of story, replying to one of the guys and criticizing some of the magnanimous for having cooperation with might people states smartly: " every wise people with all their wisdom are the same as all other ordinary people. They were not innocent. All of them have once had a guilty and get the expiable (kafare) of the guilty.

Aristotle deposited logic so that his followers, the poetic or the rhetoric, make excuses from his sins. Birooni by the water of Ma lel-Hend washed his hands of the blood of all who were killed by Mahmood. Khajeh Nasir tried to do ablution in his Ethics. And Nizam ol- Molk who was in nature a man like Khanlar-Khan who, when has found himself in predicament, asked the draft of his poems. All of these cases in my opinion are just like power parasites. They are like flees that are under the tail of a restive mule of power. The power which is based on oppression not justice. The power of justice is in the martyrs&#39 speech. For this, I see the history through the eyes of martyrs, some like " Christ", "Ali", Halaj", "Sohravardi". Not on the view of what written by those who were powered from the government, and considered "Anoshirvan" as just, the man who poured hot lead in the throats of Mazdaks" That is clear, such speeches are not matched with the character of a "Mirza- Benvis". Al Ahmad&#39s passion in politics, in criticizing leftist ideas and nativist tendencies of that juncture of his intellectual living, changes the story to an artificial exhibition of encountering different political and social thoughts and opinions which are not in harmony with the characters of the story.

Bakhtin considers a novel, whose characters go along with the writers intention, as a failed novel. So it can be said, Al Ahmad to direct the characters along with his own intention and to represent sharp criticisms against opponent thoughts, destroyed the beauty and artistic aspect of the story. This basically referred to Al Ahmad&#39s intention in his way of story writing. He employs the story to promote his social and political ideas, and was not much considerate about following the principals of story writing. The fact that Al Ahmad uses the techniques for telling funny and tricky stories confirms this issue.

 Al Ahmad during his intellectual life was one of the members of public enlighthened. The characteristics of these types is that they use their own specialized abilities to promote their thoughts in public society. Reading of "Noon val-Ghalam" makes obvious the fact in this regard The story in which Al Ahmad has casted a shadow over its artistic and aesthetic aspect. And this makes the success of Al Ahmad in this work to be in doubt.