The Case For and Against The Satanic Verses

Got this book after two months on the waiting list of the library, that says a thing or two about the book.
Found it a bit to damn abstract, too fuzzy, you must be clear if you set out to confuse.
All through the book you get the feeling, the real book was the flimsy plot, described by Roy here, & the bits baout jahiliya, Ayesha, the whore house , Baal were added later, or at the very least ballooned from a shrivelled thought to an idea of `shock into thinking & debate ....` the voltage for the shock seems to be dragged out, the intent , a few enraged muslims to get that first edition flying from the shelf & the dollars flowing into the pocket.
In the end Rushdie got much more then in bargained for , a good author trapped in a bad book , the satanic verses will forever be recited to rushdie , this is the book with which he will be introduced , & will be remembered by. Scholars in coming time will study the book just to understand the response it generated , its artistic value lost & so also the much better works of the author.
To the muslims , rushdie should be thankful , for with their book burning a bad book of his was claimed to be a masterpiece.
As for his actual trashing of Mohammed , one is reminded of what Trudeau the canadian P.M said when he was told that Nixon refered to him as a SOB, `` I have been called worse things by better people ``.
One must feel sympathy for rushdie, for more then anyone else the book distorted him. THE WRATH OF GOD ...PERHAPS.

I am afraid that I rarely read such long pieces of writing on screen.

But my ``do paisay`` or two cents...

Salman Rushdie holds the unique distinction of being the writer
who is best known for the worst book that he has ever written.
And believe me, this comment has nothing to do with religion.

I will leave it at that for now because someday I hope to write an
opinion piece on this. Muslims themselves are responsible for making this book and its writer a household name in the West.

Ras

Great to read this: This is an excellent attempt at presenting a well-thought out critique of the Novel; There are many vantage points to analyze this book and Dr Roy seems to have used many:

1. the point of view of a man brought up in post partition, post colonial india pakistan. That vantage seems to be Rushdie`s definitive viewpoint. Just analyzing this book from that vantage point would require a book in itself--there is so much sub-text and context. Unfortunately Rushdie seems to suffer from a background foreground problem that his critics dislike. The context and sub-text of his work is always subsumed under the wild colour and extravagance of his prose, his dialogue and his characters. Man does he make it complex, or what? Dr Roy points out that he does NOT understand the post colonial, post partition India.
2. the point of view of a male muslim, tracing his traditions, his history his belief. Dr Roy points out that Rushdie does not understand polytheism beyond the obvious suspension of belief from a typical monotheistic.
3. The author`s own personal life and experiences that keep popping up througout the novel.

Dr Roy`s work has provided a comprehensive platform to really talk about the book and what it says, rather than what some Iranian had to say about the book back when. Can people stop talking about how useless the book was? It proves over and over again that it was a useful work, simply because of the reactions it produced.

1. Dr Roy`s comments that criticize Rushdie for not understanding India--are probably true. It is also interesting that That is exactly what Pakistanis say about his other works and this one``Rushdie doesnt understand our culture``. If understanding means borrowing a culture`s blindspots well then for sure, Rushdie doesnt understand. Rushdie writes from a perspective that perhaps people from India are not familiar with--the idea that Muslims historically ruled that country and the sense of angst at losing it to the British and then Hindu parliamentarians.

Peculiarly a similar sentiment exists among Indians--that Pakistan is a runaway mutinous child that was stolen by M.A. Jinnah with the help of Gandhi. Rushdie brings his unique acerbic wit to bear on all our sacred cows. It suits him to use the Muslim anti-idol stance. It suits him to use a comic book action adventure manner of story telling. I guess he thinks like many a Bombay film director, who the hell will buy this, unless I put some masala? Masala aside, the book has some important points that usually get completely missed in the violent supertext and action. And for pointing those out, Dr Roy must be admired.

2. Yes Rushdie lacks sentiment--the characters never behave like human beings with tears, hearts and feelings. They behave more like caricatures in a cartoon program--but I cant imagine how the author would be able to make his point unless he did this? The ideas that lie behind this novel are so huge and abstract; it is hard to translate those into natural direct prose. Can people who are deeply steeped in tradition ever see anything beyond those traditions, unless someone shocks them? More people from India and Pakistan read Rushdie than Naipaul, I am willing to bet. As for pandering to a Western audience--why not? he writes in their language--this language this civilization has become so powerful--who would notice him if he wrote in Urdu? This is Imperialism.

3. His comments on religions and the understanding of theology show that aside from being born with a Muslim name, he is steeped in agnosticism. The comments on the book being a dialogue between belief and skepticism-- I thought were very insightful. It truly seems that Rushdie is standing shocked at the level of prevalent belief--. the blind adherence of people to these beliefs. And so his characters go from all shades of doubt and belief.

Dr Roy is right that Hinduism is little understood--and its flexibility is its power--whereas theistic religions pick fights over identity, Hinduism has been remarkably resilient and anti-death. In effect, polytheism is the charming, fun cousin of dry, practical agnosticism...now that could give inspiration to Rushdie for his next novel--but it seems that Roy is right..Rushdie, by the extent of his interest in Muslims and Islam is more Muslim and Pakistani than British and Indian.

If anything, Rusdie has at least made it fashionable to read and write about countries and cultures that have the least written about them. Instead of the Royal family, the world got to read about another world, another stage--it it wasnt praise at least it was publicity, an opening for more voices from this region and hope for political presence in a world media skewed towards the matters of the West, rather than of the East.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Why whip a dead donkey?
Are you trying to resurrect him before the Appointed Hour so that someone can ride him for the salvation of mankind?

Are the sale of the trash sagging? Is he having difficulty paying his security expenses.

Such kind of writings are pampered & preened only by professor, journalist, or `writer` types. Masticaters & cud-chewers of intellectualism. Such people are incapable of earning an honest living in the marketplace. These are the kind who cannot earn a living outside being `employed` by the state ,a welfare-agency, or panderers to the puerile and porno english-commercialism.

They sneer at those free-minds who do not have to adjust their `correctness` for the sake of tenure or grant. These wretches try to `glamourise` their vocation by becoming increasingly deviant `radical`, noise-worthy and news-ready.

Except for the hard sciences there is no need to spend taxpayers money on such bufoonery which any Indi-paki can ill afford.