ziggy

Has anyone read this book?





edited to add - there may be plot points given away, so don't read if that'll piss you off.


I've just finished it and I'd like a discussion of it, if there is anyone else here who has read it. I thought it was one of the most rewarding books I've read in a while, but I also am not sure how to untangle the morality or religion or whatever of it.

Who is the protagonist (if there is one) Gabreel or Saladin?


Or more clearly I guess - The Angel or the Devil?

Is Gibreel insane - I don't think so (or maybe he is, but it is all true anyway) "it was and it was not" and all.

Also, was Gibreel really the Angel, and by that I mean - was he an angel all along and just human for a brief period of his life as an angel?


And the whole episode of the butterfly prophetess confused me - is that a real Islamic story?

gondorspit

I believed while reading that this was a book about identity more than religion, though they are of course intertwined-- meaning: nationalism was just as important a factor as say religion or morality (and whose morality you judge yourself by).

The transformation of each character, I felt, was symbolic of their self-image and the views of the society they are in at that time, India or England. Though the transformation definitely happens within the novel, it was a metaphor for the realization of other people's preconceptions, and the coming to terms with those preconception by the characters.

It was a heavy read, and that is what I can remember at the moment-- if any of this post made sense?

ziggy

Yes, I think it was about identity as well, but I still can't get to the "moral" of the story. I think the saladin (the devil) was much more human than Gibreel, and Saladin's giving in to his anger is what brought him back to humanity. I don't know if his return to India related to a srt of redemption or not. I think the book is more about being human - about the various ways to do that; and perhaps that anger is more valid than salvation, pity, or whatever aspect one could say Gibreel represents.


Also, what about the narrator? At one point it implied that it was satan, at another it implied that it was god. - Do you think that implies that they are the same thing? I think so.


In terms of the response to this book, I can't see how the fatwa on Rushdie is deserved. There are certainly many heretical things in "The Satanic Verses," but ultimately I think it redeems religion itself, even if it undermines a particular religion. I am an atheist, so my views of religion will always be colored by that, but in the book, even though Mohound is only talking to himself, there is still a god; there is still a divine aspect.

gondorspit

Rushdie definitely conveys the feeling that there is no good without evil, making them the same thing. I think we need to get another opinion in here because I agree with most of what you said.

As for the fatwa, strict is strict. The debate about why Mohound changed the word of God has been going on forever, well a long time, and Rushdie just brought it up again. So he violated something that was sacred and they want(ed) to kill him-- supposedly they are over that. Naturally, I don't know how anyone could get that worked up over a book.

ziggy

I sort of doubt that the Shah of Iran actually read the book anyway. I can't seem to picture that.

BoatDrinks

Do a search!

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...ht=surrounding

ziggy

'k I remember that thread- I think I even posted on it. But this one is a different thread. That one was people who hadn't read it talking about it. I wanted a thread involving people who had read it - big difference

BoatDrinks

Sure, publicly humiliate me, Zig...

ziggy

sorry, man.

BTW, does your name come from "Things to do in Denver when You're Dead" - that was a great movie.