Haroun Final Post
- juliafurst
- Oct 19, 2017
- 3 min read
We have just finished Haroun and the Sea of Stories for the second time, using an allegoric lens to interpret the story differently. The story ended in an abrupt happy ending, which makes me question the strong connection we built between Rushdie(the author) and Rushid (the character the conflict was based upon). Rushdie had been wanted by the fatwa for many years and was sent into hiding, and people who were associated to the book, The Satanic Verses, were murdered by the fatwa because of their connections with the book. How, after knowing they were the reason somebody was murdered, could one come out of hiding and automatically be happy again? To me it doesn't make sense. On page 210, after Rushid and Haroun returned home after being granted one wish, he says,"'Was this the walrus's work, too?' Rushid murmured to Haroun, who just shook his head." Before this,however, Haroun question if this happiness is fake. Would Haroun's mother have come back if it weren't for the Walrus?
These questions of Haroun and this "fake" happiness came up frequently in the group discussion. Everyone agreed that it could have been hard for everything to be the same as before, when they knew this love could have been fake. Another interesting thing that came up in our discussion went back to page 188, it says,"Sunrise! It tore away the shrouds of silence and shadow which the sorcery of Khattam-Shud had hung around the citadel." Somebody said something about the Guppees and the Egg heads stopping the rotation of Kahani, keeping the Chupwalas in the dark. Then a very insightful connection was made. The Chupwalas were literally and figuratively kept in the dark. Along with being physically kept in the dark by the Guppees, they were also figuratively kept in the dark because Khattam-Shud was a dictator and they were withheld information about what was going on. Once again revealing another possible allegorical, deeper meaning.
To me it was interesting how. like I said earlier, the story stopped abruptly. After so many very detailed events, leading up to the climax, I thought there would have been a more detailed ending after they had returned home. I think I just wished it ended differently. It made me have an easy feeling to end on a note where Haroun is questioning the true reason his own mother came back to him. Rushdie should have at least gave us a hint at whether or not it was real.
In the beginning of the novel the question was asked of,"Are fictional stories morally good lies?" and we have all been pondering on this question throughout the book. After reading this a second time, I would have to lean towards, yes, they are morally good lies. I think my allegoric lens has a lot to do with my opinion on this. In an allegory, there is a lesson learned, or a deeper meaning, and I believe this is what makes it morally good. But, I think all fictional stories are morally good because, Khattam-Shud said it himself,"'And inside every single story, inside every Stream in the Ocean, there lies a world, a story-world, that I cannot rule at all.'" Just like Jonathan Gottschall said in the Story telling Animal, humans live off stories, when a person dreams it tells itself stories, when a person gossips they are telling a story, when a person writes they are telling a story. How could fictional stories be bad, when they are such a big part of a human's life?
Overall, I thought the book was good. Probably not something I would read a third time, but it was interesting seeing how the story changed when I read it with background knowledge of the author and through an allegorical lens. I definitely think this book was meant for more than just children, considering it seemed to have a lot of deeper meaning that could be picked up on by older audience.
Comments