The Satanic Verses,
by Salman Rushdie,
1988
Literary fiction/Magical realism
576 pages
Goodreads
Buy the book on my Bookshop
In cased you missed our previous posts:
Pre-read discussion
Discussion on Parts 1 and 2
On Parts 3-4
On Part 5
📚 📚 📚
And now here are our questions and answers on Parts 6 to 9, and a final recap:
1. There is definitely more criticism against the Qur’an in these parts, especially regarding women. Though most of these are presented as Gibreel’s dreams. What do you think about this literary tool, inserting all these as dreams?
Marianne:
I have seen this with other authors, especially talking about Islam. They let animals speak. Or inanimate objects. I think it’s a good way to distance the author from the subject and give the reader the opportunity to get closer to the thoughts. The tool makes it possible to differentiate from your own thoughts and those of others, from something you might just think yourself or the general opinion. It is definitely a narrative style that brings me closer to magic realism.
Emma:
I took it as a way for the author to distance himself from his content. I assume he could measure that some passages of the book might not be too well received. But he could at least say, it’s not even anything my characters said or thought, but just dreamed.
2. What do you think about the way the author describes London’s hospitality? Do you think the author would still write these words today?
Marianne:
I think the world has become more hostile and more xenophobic, more racist in the last couple of years, especially with more refugees coming to our countries. (Mind you, the people who are most against those refugees are often in those areas that have the least.) So, if he would describe life in a large city with many immigrants today, he might describe an even worse life for them.
Emma:
For those who have not read the book, here is the passage I had in mind when I wrote the question:
London, its conglomerate nature mirroring his own, its reticence also his; its gargoyles, the ghostly footfalls in its streets of Roman feet, the honks of its departing migrant geese. Its hospitality — yes! — in spite of immigration laws, and his own recent experience, he still insisted on the truth of that: an imperfect welcome, true, one capable of bigotry, but a real thing, nonetheless, as was attested by the existence in a South London borough of a pub in which no language but Ukrainian could be heard.
I wrote some questions with an answer in mind, but for others like this one, I truly didn’t know.
I assume there are still today in London (possibly even more?) areas where only one foreign language is spoken, but can it be considered today as a sign of hospitality? Maybe not. Marianne, I agree with your analysis of the situation.
Actually, why didn’t Rushdie stay in England? Did he have an issue with the way they reacted to foreigners at the time?
Well, I was curious and went fishing of Rushdie shared his opinion on London and I found this in am article from The Guardian (9/17/2000):
Salman Rushdie has revealed that he left London, his home since childhood, because he thought it was bitchy and uninspiring…
In an interview in today’s New York Times, Rushdie, who faced an Islamic death threat over his book The Satanic Verses, talks with relish of his new life in Manhattan. He moved to New York earlier this year and has been given celebrity status.
He said that London’s literary circles were ‘backbiting and incestuous’. He said : ‘I think it speaks for itself that, for somebody who lived in England for as long as I did, relatively little of my work has dealt with it.’
So apparently, his reason for leaving has really nothing to do with immigration.
3. As Salahuddin returns to Bombay, Zeeny gives him the following advice: “You should really try and make an adult acquaintance with this place, this time. Try and embrace this city, as it is, not some childhood memory that makes you both nostalgic and sick. Draw it close. The actually existing place. Make its faults your own. Become its creature; belong.”
Why these advice now, not about London, but about the character’s city of origin?
Marianne:
Wherever you go, you always have an image in your mind. When you go to some place you haven’t seen before, you might be inclined to have an open mind and not expect everything the way you have seen it in books or on tv. When you return to a place you have been to, you often don’t bear that in mind. I returned to my home area after having been away for 40 years. Am I disappointed that things have changed? No, on the contrary. I would have been if it were still the same. But I didn’t return because I loved it so much as a child, after all, there was a reason I left, but because my family is here. And that makes all the difference.
So, I totally understand the advice given to Saladin because I would have said the same. It’s always best if you make a place your own, sometimes that’s not possible but when you are from the area, it’s easier to be accepted.
Emma:
When reading previous parts of the book, I thought migration was THE main theme. Now, I think migration is a sub-theme of the major one: identity and transformation. Indeed, the main characters go back to India, not necessarily because their migration experience failed.
I see this passage as an invitation to a more mature view on the place where one lives. And maybe the fact of having lived as a foreigner in another country can make this easier to do.
Though personally, if I had to go back to my country of origin, I don’t think I would be able to go beyond my memories of the “golden age” of the past (i.e., as the country was when I was younger) and accept how it has changed since. From what I hear from relatives still living there, I would definitely not like it.
4. Gibreel is originally portrayed as the successful immigrant, with the divine and angelic images, but he is sick in his mind and ends up committing suicide. Chamcha, who has suffered most in his immigration experience, and was associated with devilish imagery, seems now the more normal and balanced of the two. How do you explain this reversal?
Marianne:
People are never what they seem. You meet someone, they seem nice but turn out to be just friendly to your face. Someone else seems a bit odd and in the end you notice they are just shy but the friendliest people you can imagine. I think we can also go back to the fall, it represents a great change for the people, well, most of them die, these two survive but their characters change forever. The whole portrayal of the two men is ambiguous.
Emma:
I see it as a statement on the fact that migration is a complex adventure. It’s not all black or all white, all bad or all evil.
And to go back to the theme of identity, I think Rushdie wants also to highlight the fact that human nature is also complex, and that we all have a part of good and evil.
Marianne, I like how you focus on the appearance. Indeed, especially when we meet people form another culture, we may interpret what we see with our own cultural standards, and end up misunderstanding and misjudging them.
5. Why do you think Rushdie has chosen to tell the story of Saladin’s father’s death in this final chapter? How does it relate to the rest of the novel? What functions does it serve at the end of the book?
Marianne:
Closure? I don’t know whether it is important to the whole story, it gives an insight into the future (Saladin’s). Also, the reconciliation between father and son leads us to the assumption that there is something good even in the evil, the idea that Saladin might become a “good” human being again.
Emma:
In the last parts, there is often mention of love vs. hatred, and the theme of forgiveness. The encounter between Saladin and his dying father is an important example of forgiveness. And I think it’s connected with what we talked above, how we grow, are transformed, and are able to come back to a country (or to a relation) with a new look on life and people.
It seems that Saladin has grown and profited a lot from his experience of migration.
6. There’s a powerful passage on love vs. hate:
“He [Saladin] congratulated himself on being the sort of person who had found hatred impossible to sustain for long. Maybe, after all, love was more durable than hate; even if love changed, some shadow of it, some lasting shape, persisted…
Hatred was perhaps like a finger-print upon the smooth glass of the sensitive soul; a mere grease-mark, which disappeared if left alone. Gibreel? Pooh! He was forgotten; he no longer existed. There; to surrender animosity was to become free.”
Any reflection on this?
Marianne:
Well, hopefully love does last longer than hate though I would doubt that. A strong feeling is a strong feeling and many people cannot forgive. And even more are not willing to forgive or see the other side. Look at the situation we are all in right now.
Emma:
I like a lot this passage, it illustrates my answer to question 5 actually.
I like the idea that love can be more permanent, and hate as a passing feeling. But again, I think this implies growth and transformation.
It’s powerful that Saladin even forgives Gibreel and all he represented.
Saladin’s father is a good example of inner transformation:
But it [cancer] had also stripped him of his faults, of all that had been domineering, tyrannical and cruel in him, so that the mischievous, loving and brilliant man beneath lay exposed, once again, for all to see.
7. What do you think about the structure of the book? Was it satisfying for you? What is its purpose?
Marianne:
The narrative structure is quite complex, it had to be with a book like this. The alternation between dreams and “truth” was very instructive. It made it easier to understand.
Emma:
The back and forth between the present and the past was a bit confusing here for me (though I do like it in many other books). And I’m not sure about its purpose here.
As for the dreams, I was trying to remember as I read, ok now this is part of the a dream, but it was interrupting the flow, and ultimately I thought maybe it was not that important.
8. Did you find the ending satisfactory?
Marianne:
I wasn’t unhappy about it. I would have expected something a little more confusing given the whole book seemed to get more and more incoherent.
Emma:
I was actually surprised that the main characters went back to their country, I was not expecting that. But I like the fact that Saladin is given another chance, and has grown a lot throughout the book.
9. What do you think is the author’s ultimate message?
Marianne:
That’s hard to say. Somewhere, I read this was not about islam but about immigrants. I thought only I had seen it that way, having been a foreigner most of my life. One always tends to see what we have experienced ourselves. I would think he wants to present both topics. And probably a bit more.
Emma:
Human nature is complex, and it’s important not to judge too quickly. Life experience is complex but can be enriching if we accept to follow the flow. Then we can grow and experience a satisfying transformation.
This is the message I got personally, but Rushdie’s intent was different I a sure. I actually thought this was not about Islam, and realize it’s actually more than I thought.
Anyway, Rushdie is very critical of any religion. Yesterday, while reading another book that has nothing to do with this one, I read that the root of the word hypocrite means actor. There are a lot of actors in this book. And I actually wonder if Rushdie thought about the etymological connection between these words when he decided to include so many actors (beside the fact that he would have liked to have a career as an actor). People who are critical of religion often talk about hypocrisy, that’s my point here, sorry for my convoluted reflection!
10. Did the book fulfill your expectations of it? Did you like it, why or why not?
Marianne:
After having read “Midnight’s Children“, I was expecting a tough read. And a lot of food for thought. And a lot of stimulation, discussion topics. I did get that. I would have liked some more comments but I hope they will still come in the future.
Emma:
I am glad I finally read one of his major novels and I enjoyed it. I found it extremely rich (in cultural references for instance for the ones I could catch!!)
But at the same time, I feel I barely scratched the surface of its content, even though we did a very close reading, thanks to our questions, and even though I read several essays and analysis! This is the type of book (Umberto Eco’s are other good examples of that) for which I would benefit having a semester of classes!
I was a bit apprehensive as for the religious aspects, but it really didn’t bother me (even the scene of the partying of the sea is more based on a real event than on the Biblical event).
11. Would you consider The Satanic Verses as a good example of the magical realism genre?
Marianne:
Yes and no. At some points, the dreams are far too “fantastic”, at other places, it interweaves too much with reality. We swap from strange to ordinary, we are given a mirror of our lives.
Emma:
I’m not sure either. I have read several books described as pertaining to the magical realism genre, but I don’t only see what they really have in common. For me, Murakami is a better representative.
12. Was there anything you wish was explored that wasn’t?
Marianne:
I doubt it. Towards the end, there was so much to deal with already, I wouldn’t have wished more topics on top of those already presented.
Emma:
It would have been interesting to deal with Islamic elements more in the scenes related to the present than those in the past (or outside of dreams), but I understand that would have been too tricky to do!
13. Are you planning on reading more books by Rushdie?
Marianne:
The narrative structure is quite complex, it had to be with a book like this. The alternation between dreams and “truth” was very instructive. It made it easier to understand.
Emma:
I definitely want to explore more of his older novels. Or I may actually read soon his memoir, Joseph Anton.
14. What did you think about our buddy-read experience? Is it something you would like to do again?
Marianne:
I definitely would love to do it again. Maybe November wasn’t a good month to choose such a heavy book, so we didn’t have many comments. But just exchanging our thoughts, Emma’s and mine, added a lot to the experience of the book. That was great!
Emma:
Marianne, I’m very grateful you accepted to do this with me on this challenging book. Even though I enjoyed the book, if we had not planned to do that I might have dragged my feet and who knows, maybe even DNF the book, because of its complexity and the time I needed to invest to try to get a better reading of it.
Thanks for your questions that challenged me to go deeper, and for your answers that often invited me to look at things differently.
Yes, my mistake in suggesting November!
Let me know if you want to do this again next year on another book, during an easier month!
📚 📚 📚
Here is our full schedule:
- November 1st: introductory post at Words And Peace
- Between November 8-12: questions + answers on the first 23% of the book (up to end of PART II. Stop before “Ellowen Deeowen”) at Let’s Read
- Between Nov 15-19: questions + answers on the second quarter of the book (stop before V. A City Visible but Unseen), at Words And Peace
- Between Nov 22-26: questions + answers on the third quarter of the book (stop before VI. Return to Jahilia) at Let’s Read
- Between Nov 29-December 3: last quarter of the book and conclusion questions at Words And Peace
HAVE YOU READ THIS BOOK?
LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK
FEEL FREE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS ANY TIME
Words And Peace 