Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman - Essay Example

?Introduction In Haroun and the Sea of Stories, four different characters ask what the use of stories are if they are not even true. This question iswhat leads to the main character’s father, Rashid, losing his ability to tell stories, which is calamitous, as Rashid previously was a master storyteller. This leads Haroun on adventures to essentially rescue the sea of stories from the forces of evil which his trying to eliminate these stories. What the text shows is that the question might be considered to be an allegory regarding the freedom of speech – essentially, what the question is, at least when it is asked by Mr. Sengupta and the Cultmaster, both of whom are paragons of evil in the book, as Mr. Sengupta ran off with Haroun’s mother, and the Cultmaster wants to control the world, is that speech, in the eyes of the evil, does not serve a purpose. Rushdie explores this concept, that oppressive regimes restrict speech, which makes their countries like the dark and loveless Chup, while democratic regimes allow freedom of speech. These democratic countries are like the Gup, which is bathed in light and love. The novel, then, is an allegory for this, as the hero Haroun defeats the forces of evil that are threatening to choke off all stories, which is, in itself, allegorical for the people of oppressive regimes rising up to defeat their totalitarian governments with words. Discussion One way of looking at Haroun and the Sea of Stories is by looking at the life of Salman Rushdie during the time that he wrote the stories. This would provide at least one interpretation for why stories are important if they are not even true, in that sometimes stories are allegorical, in that they stand in for something else entirely. In this case, Krishnan (1995) states that the Haroun and the Sea of Stories is an allegory which explores issues surrounding individual freedom and political authority. It also explores issues regarding the “other,” while exploring issues of opposites which are inherent in colonialism – in colonialism, according to Krishnan (1995), the mentality of the colonialist is one of opposites. Black and white, good and evil, salvation and damnation, civilization and savagery, inferiority and superiority, intelligence and emotions, self and other, subject and object (p. 68). The way that Rushdie explores these themes, according to Krishnan (1995), is by showing opposites in the text. For instance, there are the creatures with the eyes which are turned inside out – the “whites” of the eyes being black, the irises being grey, and the pupils being white. Other binary opposites are silence and speech – silence is on Chup, as is darkness; speech is on Gup, which is always in the light (Rushdie, 1990). “Gup is bright and Chup is dark. Gup is warm and Chup is freezing cold. Guppees love the ocean, Chupwalas try to poison it. Guppees love stories, and speech; Chupwalas, it seems, hate these things just as strongly. It was a war between Love…and Death” (p. 125). This is clearly a protest against the oppressive regimes in the Middle East and of the Islamic countries that would silence Rushdie and others for speaking out against their regimes and insulting the Muslim religion – and this is still a problem today, as witnessed by some of the protests that occur when the Muslim religion is slighted by the Western world. These countries, where freedom of speech is not valued, and any other country where freedom of speech is restricted, is the equivalent to the Chup of darkness. The democratic countries, such as Great Britain and the United States, which are democratic and value freedom of speech, is the binary of the oppressive regimes, and these countries are represented by the Gup. As Krishnan (1995) notes, it was during the time that Rushdie was publishing his Haroun novel that he was under a fatwa, which means that he was marked for death, because of his publication of The Satanic Verses (Krishnan, 1995). Therefore, he was not allowed his free speech, as his free speech had him marked for death. He wanted to protest this silencing of him and others who offended the mullahs who marked him for death, so his work could serve as an allegory for his crisis during this time – to not speak would mean that the world would remain in darkness, and the actions of others could never be brought out into the light. Evil could flourish in such an environment, which is what occurred in the Haroun book – evil flourished on Chup, as the anti-stories were being used to poison the real stories, so that the stories would eventually cease (Rushdie, 1990). If the stories ceased, then the world would be in the dark, because there would be nobody to speak out against evil. This is what the allegory means, and this is one function of stories that are not true. This is exemplified in the rise of Nazi Germany – there clearly were not enough voices to speak out against what Hitler was doing in his extermination, therefore Hitler rose to power. This is but one example of what can happen when stories, and speech is restricted, and when propaganda and lies are used to poison the truth. This is what is represented by the anti-stories which were poisoning the real stories. Mukherjee (1998) concurs in this analysis. For Rushdie, who was effectively silenced at the pain of death, a plurality of voices is obviously advantageous over silence. This is why the Guppees have the advantage in Haroun – they have multiple voices, which means that the Guppees were able to establish a bond between them. The Chupwalas, on the other hand, were silent, and this silence bred mistrust and suspicion, which means that they were not bonded to one another like the Guppees were. This became an advantage in the battle between the Guppees and the Chupwalas, which was another way of stating that speech is always better than silence, and have multiple voices is better than none at all. This is clearly Rushdie's way of advocating for a democratic society, such as the society and government seen in Great Britain, the United States, and throughout democratic governments in Europe – in these countries, there is a multitude of voices in the media and in government, which means that any one idea will not go unchallenged. This is clearly healthy and a way to attain representative government, as officials and government needs to be questioned. This is what is meant by the fact that multiple voices bonded the Guppees – in a democratic society, the plurality of voices is what bonds the society together. This would be one reason why the questioning of stories which are not true would result in calamity in the book –for instance, after Haroun asks this question, his father lost his ability to tell his stories. When Mr. Sengupta asks the question, Soraya, Haroun’s mother, left home to be with Mr. Sengupta soon after. When the cultmaster, aka Mr. Sengupta, asks the question, Haroun and Iff were forced below the Dark Ship, which was not an entirely bad thing, as it was there that they learned about the anti-stories, and how the anti-stories poisoned the real stories, with the purpose of eventually drying the ocean of stories so that no more tales could come forth (Rushdie, 1990). The characters who question the stories, and why they matter if they are not true, are questioning, in effect, the right to speak at all, because that is at the heart of the allegory of the tale. And, if people do not have the right to speak, then the cultmaster can take over the world, which is what he is interested in – he wants to control the world, stating that the “world is for controlling” (p. 161). And, if people are not allowed to speak, then evil can control the world. This is why questioning stories and their purpose – ie questioning speech itself – leads to calamitous results in the novel. This, again, is Rushdie advocating for voices to speak out against totalitarianism – just as the cultmaster wants to control the world, therefore he wants to control stories by poisoning them, so, too, will oppressive regimes attempt to control their countries by controlling the media and silencing voices. As the cultmaster was defeated, and the poisoned stories were freed, so, too, must oppressive regimes be defeated, so that freedom of speech may blossom in these countries. Al-Azm (2000) states that Rushdie’s characters are asking the question about the value of stories for a different reason. Al-Azm (2000) says that Rushdie was essentially asking what the value is of free speech if it leads to hatred, violence and sacrifice. And Rushdie was further asking in this question, according to Al-Azm (2000) whether he, Rushdie, should keep fighting the Khattam Shuds, or relent to them, and, whether his defiance had a point. After all, if defiance to Rushdie meant perpetrating stories which are not even true, implies Al-Azm (2000), then is it worth it? This interpretation is an interesting one, to say the least, especially if one views the context of the entire novel. For, it is clear that Rushdie does think that freedom of speech is valuable, and that fighting for it is necessary. There hardly seems to be a question about this. At the same time, however, as Krishnan (1995) states, there are the anti-stories, which are poisoning the stories in the book, but can also be seen as some kind of allegory for speech that turns out to be harmful. This means the speech that politicians might use to get elected, which often consists of lies, distortions and propaganda. This kind of speech is the anti of truthful speech, for this kind of speech is the kind of speech that gets men like Hitler elected. Just like with the anti stories in the book, which poison the real stories, lies and propaganda poison the truthful speech. And Rashid in Haroun was a purveyor of this kind of speech as well – as Haroun noted, the “Grand Panjandrums of various political parties” used Rashid’s gift for stories to get elected, and it was clear that these politicians lied to the constituency – they never “believed anything a politico said,” but believed Rashid, so Rashid was very valuable to the politicans (Rushdie, 1990, p. 20). This is one way that “stories which are not even true” is harmful to society, when people use lies, distortions and propaganda to gain power. These are the anti-stories, and Rushdie appears to be condemning just this very type of speech with his allusions to the truth – ie stories – being throttled by lies – ie anti-stories. This, too, is a protest against governments that might use propaganda, lies and smears to attain power and the support of the people. The anti-stories were defeated in Haroun, as they must be so that the stories – speech – may be freed. The lies, propagandas and distortions used by oppressive regimes must be similarly defeated, and this was the point of the anti-stories section. The moon plays a part in the silence and evil which is residing upon Chup, because the moon is controlled by evil forces, and the moon is what is keeping Chup in the perpetual dark and Gup in the perpetual light (Rushdie, 1990). It was only when the moon moves, because of the machinations of Haroun’s will, that the two planets are able to both have light and dark again – or, as Mukherjee (1998) states, the two planets become dialogic again. This is also an allegory, according to Mukherjee (1998), which is that the people who are under the thumb of oppression should rise up against this oppression, like Haroun did against the Chups in the book, and then, and only then, can the darkness of the oppressive regimes be brought into the light. In other words, the evil of these regimes can be exposed, just like Chups was bathed in light when the moon was moved by Haroun. Conclusion Freedom of speech is valuable and worth fighting for. With it, the world is bathed in light, in that, literally, evil cannot operate if people shine the light on it. On the other hand, if people cannot shine a light on evil, then they remain in the dark, and evil is allowed to flourish. When the characters are asking about the value of stories which are not true, they are, essentially, asking the allegorical question of what is the value of freedom of speech. When one questions what the value is of freedom of speech, as Haroun did, then this might lead to a lack of speech freedom, which, in turn, would lead to the world becoming like the Chup in the novel. This, in the end, is the purpose of the question, because it leads Haroun to understand the value of speech/stories, and also leads Haroun to defeat evil through defeating the mechanisms for choking off the stories – the anti-stories, which would be allegorical to oppressive regimes. References Al-Azm, Sadik. “The Satanic Verses post festum: The global, the local, the literary,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, XX.1&2 (2000): 44-70. Online. Krishnan, R.S. “Telling of the tale: Text, context, and narrative act in Rushdie’s Haroun and the Sea of Stories. The International Fiction Review, 22 (1995): 67-93. Online. Mukherjee, Meenakshi. “Politics and children’s literature: A reading of Haroun and the Sea of Stories,” A Review of International English Literature, 29.1 (1998): 163-190. Online. Rushdie, Salman. Haroun and the Sea of Stories. London: Penguin Group, 1990. Print. Read More