Haroun and FW- how they are related. . .well, I think they both bring up an interesting question- "What are the use of stories that aren't even true?" Which I feel translates into, "What is the point of a story that doesn't make sense?" For Finnigans Wake. They both imply that stories for stories' sake are meaningless or are just simplistic entertainment for children. I remember Prof. Sexson saying something to the effect that Finnigans Wake sometimes sounded more like language of babies or small kids trying to talk, which is often nonsense; but we love to listen to it anyway. I am not sure why. But maybe stories like that, for children or sounds like children or like nothing human are likable because they're bigger than we are in a way. They're unlimited by reality and fun. I like pg 161 when Khattam-Shud says that "The world is not for Fun. The world is for Controlling." Stories and imagination and dreams can't really be controlled by anything, in the sense of stopping up sources of inspiration or forcing someone to change an idea- well, I guess unless you're trying to sell it- I mean that organically, ideas just flow and build upon themselves to do whatever. The imagination does what it wills. Joyce put a lot of thought into what he did, but the context of the book is a dream, and imagination and creativity are embodied as an endless cycle. I think Haroun does this well too, because the story doesn't "end" with a happy ending; it's like a midway point. The ending isn't in sight, because the story keeps going. Anyway to wrap up everything I was trying to say: I think Rushdie is a super small scale version of FW that asks us to examine why we are here and why we read stories- If the point has to be useful or have purpose, or if the point is to enjoy the ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment