I recently read "The Satanic Verses"... (btw..thanks a lot Scott for giving me both that AND the Dom DiLillo... both of those guys are big on writing non-linearly)...
It didn't really seem all that "satanic", at least not in the traditional sense. Though perhaps if atheism is the modern Satan, then Rushdie made his point.
The book is only mildly blasphemous to Islam. It could be compared with Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" rather than with Nikos Kazantzakis' "The Last Temptation of Christ". Both Bulgakov and Rushdie recreate a historical narrative of the of the crucial moments in the founding of their respective religions from a secular perspective.
What "really" happened. Bulgakov speculates Christ was an illegitimate and slightly crazy itinerant preacher run afoul of the Pharasees and pitied though misunderstood by Pilot. Rushdie speculates Mohammed was a megalomaniacal demagogue, but of stern vision for the betterment of humanity. One who believed his visions, so strongly that he failed to realize the difference between his own will and a Divine Will.
Rushdie obviously owes quite a bit to Bulgakov. In both books, interspersed between the historical narrative, there is a story occurring in the present, in which the fantastic and magical are commonplace. Kind of a clever irony to try to rationalize a religion with the supremely irrational. In Bulgakov's case the Devil has come to Moscow and is leading all the good communists into perdition because they don't believe in him. In Rushdie's, two Indian actors become avatars of Gabriel and Satan.
Ultimately, I think that the reason Rushdie's book is so much more inflammatory is that he more or less explicitly denies the metaphysical aspect of his topic. His critique is thus more overtly harsh. Despite the fact that most critics claim that "Master and Margarita" is an attack on Christianity.... I think that he was writing under the Soviet constraints and that he actually was supporting it. Or at least he wanted it to be true. In his book, the goodness of Christ, even this mortal character, becomes undeniably apparent to Pilate. On the other hand, Rushdie's Mohammed is a petty tyrant who is successful exactly because he caters to the lower instincts in men. I think the final event in both books, which I won't reveal, even states this case more explicitly....
It didn't really seem all that "satanic", at least not in the traditional sense. Though perhaps if atheism is the modern Satan, then Rushdie made his point.
The book is only mildly blasphemous to Islam. It could be compared with Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" rather than with Nikos Kazantzakis' "The Last Temptation of Christ". Both Bulgakov and Rushdie recreate a historical narrative of the of the crucial moments in the founding of their respective religions from a secular perspective.
What "really" happened. Bulgakov speculates Christ was an illegitimate and slightly crazy itinerant preacher run afoul of the Pharasees and pitied though misunderstood by Pilot. Rushdie speculates Mohammed was a megalomaniacal demagogue, but of stern vision for the betterment of humanity. One who believed his visions, so strongly that he failed to realize the difference between his own will and a Divine Will.
Rushdie obviously owes quite a bit to Bulgakov. In both books, interspersed between the historical narrative, there is a story occurring in the present, in which the fantastic and magical are commonplace. Kind of a clever irony to try to rationalize a religion with the supremely irrational. In Bulgakov's case the Devil has come to Moscow and is leading all the good communists into perdition because they don't believe in him. In Rushdie's, two Indian actors become avatars of Gabriel and Satan.
Ultimately, I think that the reason Rushdie's book is so much more inflammatory is that he more or less explicitly denies the metaphysical aspect of his topic. His critique is thus more overtly harsh. Despite the fact that most critics claim that "Master and Margarita" is an attack on Christianity.... I think that he was writing under the Soviet constraints and that he actually was supporting it. Or at least he wanted it to be true. In his book, the goodness of Christ, even this mortal character, becomes undeniably apparent to Pilate. On the other hand, Rushdie's Mohammed is a petty tyrant who is successful exactly because he caters to the lower instincts in men. I think the final event in both books, which I won't reveal, even states this case more explicitly....
posted by akrites @ 10:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home