“Haroun and the Sea of Stories” does a great job at providing a satisfying end to the plot while leaving the reader with plenty to ponder. The climactic battle of the Chups and Gups signifies an end to the war, but not to Haroun’s questions. Even after his visit to the P2C2E House and a meeting with the Walrus himself, things seem to become even more complicated than they began:
How did the Eggheads control the moon? What really happened to the P2C2E generator? Can the Walrus really manufacture happy endings? How are Kahani the moon and Kahani the city linked? In the midst of all these questions swirling through Haroun’s mind, the rest of the characters seem happy to accept the ending that they are given. This mindset shows that Haroun is a consistently-inquisitive character and suggests that there is no such thing as a true happy ending as well.
Butt?
Another mystery left unsolved is that of Butt the Hoopoe. Throughout the story, it is made clear that Butt is not a bird but a machine. I did not think much of this strange detail until reading one of Butt’s last lines, a reaction to his being ignored by Haroun:
“No point even asking me, which you didn’t,” … “I’m only a machine.”
(Rushdie, ch. 12 par. 13)
https://helenblackburnart.wordpress.com/tag/butt-the-hoopoe/
Maybe this is nothing more than a little gaff, but it struck me as odd. Is Butt just making the first excuse he can think of to keep Haroun from requesting his help, or is there something more behind that statement?
I got a feeling that there is some sarcasm in the bird’s remark. Throughout the story, on both Earth and Kahani, Butt serves but one purpose: to be a self-proclaimed “Super Express” driver. (Rushdie, ch. 2, par. 15) His sole job is to transport and everyone treats him as such. Though this may be true, Butt makes a point of reminding people that robots have rights too:
“You maybe have some objection to machines?” … “But but but you have entrusted your life to me. Then I am not worthy of a little of your respect? Machines also have their sense of self-esteem…”
(Rushdie, ch. 4, par. 16)
Remarks like this suggest one of two things: either Hoopoe is just being sensitive, or he along with the rest of the robots are mistreated, perhaps even oppressed. The latter is much more fun to discuss.
The only type of robot that the reader meets on Kahani is the flying machine. As far as is known, all the other robo-birds and whatnot go about their business without any signs of resistance. All of them, of course, except for Butt. Butt’s occasional commentary on machine rights may be a weak attempt at proving his worth; the Hoopoe might be a simple robot, but he was modeled after a human. The machine even shows that he is aware of this:
“No need to gawp like that, young sir, I can’t help it if I remind you of someone; at least, being a good driver, he’s a fellow who feels fond of a good, fast travel machine.”
(Rushdie, ch. 4, par. 15)
This linkage merges the line between man and machine. Now, I’m not going to get into the whole thing about robots becoming human; I want to talk about the opposite. Butt the mail coach, just like the Hoopoe, is treated as a machine and nothing more. The only character that seems to notice both Butts’ human features is Haroun himself; all the Guppees and bus riders see the Butts as a mode of transport. This could be reflective of the millions of job positions around the world where people are treated like machines, their cubicles draining the life out of them and exchanging it for green paper.
Is this interpretation at all what Salman Rushdie intended? Probably not. But but but it is still quite fun to think about.
Anti-Climactic Final Discussion
Our second Socratic Seminar was great, but I feel that my group’s final discussion did not reach that same standard. Instead of building on one or two topics, nobody seemed to have much to say, resulting in bouncing around an array of weak ideas. One of the center points of discussion ended up being “Toy Story” references, which isn’t a bad thing in some cases but did not have much to do with anything in that situation. On the bright side, I got some insight into other people’s ideas of the history of the Chupwallas, a subject shrouded in mystery by the book.
A Word on Speech
If knowledge is power, then speech is strength. Communication is a vehicle used to spread knowledge to others. This makes its existence vital to the growth of human society, for what use is knowledge when chained down to one frail memory? When knowledge is not spread and instead hidden, it is left to rot, locked in the darkest corner of the mind. What kind of power is that? This is one of the main themes that Salman Rushdie wished to bring to the reader through HATSOS.
http://www.groompower.com/grooms-speech/
Rushdie does not just prove the strength of speech but the disadvantage one has without it. This is done very clearly through the symbolism of the Chupwallas. The Chups are a race of people who have had their power of speech taken from them by an evil leader and have been wrongly associated with that leader. This leader, Khattam Shud, does not hate communication as his adversaries make it out to be; he just sees the limitation of it as an opportunity to seize power; if there is nobody to speak out against him, he can do as he pleases.
The Chupwallas mirror some of Rushdie’s real life experiences. His Khattam Shud is the man who put a fatwa on his head, Ayatollah Khomeini. His Chups are the good people of Iran who have been silenced by their leader.
The Final Question
Before reading HATSOS, my class asked a question: “Are fictional stories morally-good lies?” My final answer is: “Well, sometimes”.
It is easy to prove that fictional stories are lies. The point of any story is to entertain in some way. For a fictional story to be truly entertaining, it must be captivating enough to suspend the reader/viewer/listener’s disbelief. If a lie is a statement intended to deceive, then the purpose of a fictional story is to entertain through lies.
To prove that a fictional story is morally-good is a bit more difficult. The general definition of morally-good is that which is beneficial to the world’s well-being. If a fictional story is intended to teach a message that serves as a benefit to society, it is a morally-good lie. On the other hand, a fictional story can be used to harm, such as in propaganda or slander. HATSOS touches on this in the very beginning of the book:
“Anybody can tell stories,” … “Liars, and cheats, and crooks, for example. But for the stories with that Extra Ingredient, ah, for those, even the best storytellers need the Story Waters.”
In this analogy, a (morally) good story requires a meaningful lesson from the Sea of Stories.
Conclusion
“Haroun and the Sea of Stories” throws the reader head-first into a wacky world full of colorful characters and deep, meaningful mystery. The goofy children’s book style serves the motifs perfectly, hinting at darker themes through a playful lens. Although parts of the story will appear confusing and abstract to some readers, this is rarely an issue with an open, imaginative mindset going in.
I will look back on this story with a fondness for its masterful mix of fairy tale and philosophy. It is a fun read I hope to come back to some day.
3.5/5
https://geekroll.wordpress.com/tag/haroun-and-the-sea-of-stories-question-answers/
Third-Eyed Robot 