تأثیر ممیزی بر شیوه‌های روایت‌پردازی (مطالعۀ موردی مجموعه داستان هاسمیک)

Censorship is a sociological phenomenon that imposes restrictions on freedom of expression across religious, political, social, ethnic, and racial contexts, affecting writers, artists, and various segments of society. The narrative scope of a short story is more limited, enabling censors to exert influence over every word the author writes, often guided by their own perspectives. This article examines the methods of circumventing censorship in Marjan Sadeghi's collection of short stories titled “Hasmik.” This collection includes five stories that challenge censorship restrictions. The author navigates censorship in two ways. The first is through narration, employing complex narratives and stream-of-consciousness techniques, which appear in three stories in the series. The second is through direct expression via intertextuality, addressing taboos in minority lives or referencing well-known films. Other methods include consecutive descriptions, rapid information transfer, the use of both short and long sentences, and characters with distinctive traits who are willing to commit or carry out taboos within the story's framework. This research shows that censorship has influenced the writer's stylistic tendency toward a particular narrative style, which may make the work less accessible to the average reader.
Introduction
The current study adopts a critical approach to examine the relationship between the author and censorship in contemporary Iranian fiction, aiming to reveal the overt and covert mechanisms of power that shape the production of meaning within literary texts. The central question concerns how censorship affects narrative structure and how authors respond through linguistic and structural strategies. This paper specifically focuses on the inevitable and reciprocal relationship between the author and the censor as two agents simultaneously engaged in the processes of creating and erasing meaning. This relationship is not merely restrictive or suppressive. Rather, it is a form of imposed, asymmetrical dialogue that unfolds within the broader context of cultural power relations. In this dialogue, the author resists by transforming narrative layers, delaying meaning, and constructing spaces of ambiguity that evade direct censorship. The theoretical framework draws on Michel Foucault’s concept of power and discourse, Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis, and Terry Eagleton’s theory of ideology in literature. By employing these perspectives, the research situates censorship not as an isolated act of prohibition but as a discourse that interacts dynamically with literary creativity. A case study of "Hasmik," a short story collection by Marjan Sadeghi, provides a concrete platform for examining how censorship reshapes both the form and content of narrative texts in practice.
Method
This research employs a qualitative methodology that combines critical discourse analysis with narrative and semiotic reading. The targeted corpus of the study consists of Marjan Sadeghi’s Hasmik collection of stories, analyzed through key narrative components such as anachrony, focalization, and thematic construction. In the first section, the relationship between author and censorship is examined through the lens of the philosophy of power and the process of meaning production. This analysis demonstrates that the censor, through acts of deletion, alteration, and transformation, paradoxically becomes part of the creative process itself. The author and censor thus participate in a hidden yet intertwined dialogue that determines the boundaries of what can and cannot be said. Followed by that, Sadeghi’s fiction serves as an empirical case study, revealing how the author responds to censorship through specific linguistic and structural techniques. Devices such as fragmented narration, multiple time frames, and metafictional references are used to create layers of meaning that resist straightforward interpretation. The study relies on inferential and interpretive analysis rather than statistical data, emphasizing how discursive power operates in the interaction between the censor (as an institutional force) and the author (as an individual agent of resistance). Ultimately, this dialectic demonstrates that censorship not only restricts expression but also reconfigures the act of writing itself.
 
Results
Findings indicate that the impact of censorship on narrative manifests on several interrelated levels:

Linguistic and Structural Level:

To avoid deletion, authors employ techniques such as secondary plots, alternating narration, limited point of view, anachrony, and accelerated pacing. These strategies enrich the texture of the text and introduce interpretive depth; however, they also make the meaning more opaque and less accessible to the general reader.

Thematic Level:

Censorship pushes certain taboo subjects—religious, political, or sexual—into implicit or allegorical modes of expression. Rather than removing these themes, the author reintroduces them through metaphorical, cinematic, or psychological imagery. This transformation allows sensitive issues to be voiced within the boundaries of what appears to be permissible discourse.

Author–Censor Relationship:

The relationship is essentially mechanical and one-sided, yet for authors seeking publication it becomes dialectical and interpretable within the discourse of power. The censor attempts to steer meaning toward an ideologically safe direction, while the author, through the creation of new narrative forms and subtle linguistic play, constructs a counter-discourse. This tension creates an “unequal dialogue” that ultimately shapes the destiny of the text and determines the degree to which meaning can circulate within society.
Conclusion
The paper is divided into two major sections: the first analyzes the interaction between the author and the censor and its role in shaping literary form; the second presents a case study of Marjan Sadeghi’s "Hasmik." Overall, the study concludes that censorship, as an external force, disrupts the natural flow of narration and compels authors to seek alternative expressive strategies. While this may occasionally foster creative innovation and aesthetic complexity, it can also alienate literary works from the general readership and make interpretation more challenging. Nevertheless, the intricate relationship between censor and author—the central focus of this paper—demonstrates that power is never entirely one-sided. The author, fully aware of the mechanisms of suppression, implicitly engages in a dialogue with censorship and reconstructs meaning from within these limitations. This dynamic space of tension, negotiation, and redefinition is precisely where literary language acquires new expressive potential and where the act of narration becomes an act of subtle resistance.