Do you believe Shalimar's actions were that of a rational and clear minded individual, or rather those of a man driven solely by rage and blind malice?
What parallels can be drawn between Shalimar's actions against his personal injustices and the actions taken by religious and ethnic/cultural groups as a whole, spurned as well by injustice and turmoil?
What motivates someone to
become an assassin, a terrorist, a murderer? And in the enlongated moment of
that decision, how do personal, emotional wounds gain political currency enough
to justify killing someone? Or killing many people?
Rushdie portrays love as a
profound, complex, potentially dangerous emotion. In the world of this novel,
does true love exist? Or is love negated by distrust and infidelity?
As represented by the
Banquet of the Thirty-Six Courses Minimum, the acts of preparing and consuming
food stand as symbols of tradition, wealth, and power. How does Rushdie achieve
this effect?
Sorry they're late, I misread the e-mail, thought they were to be posted and answered today, not posted Tuesday and answered today.
Greg Stewart
1.) I think evidence points to the actions of a man driven solely by rage and malice. While the assassination itself may be calculated and planned, the motivation itself was that of a person who was deeply wronged and thus sought revenge.
ReplyDelete1) Do you believe Shalimar's actions were that of a rational and clear minded individual, or rather those of a man driven solely by rage and blind malice?
ReplyDeleteI believe Shalimar was thinking rationally about killing Boonyi, but rationally by his standards. Shalimar was clearly driven by rage, but it was a rage he committed to when he told Boonyi if she betrayed him that he would kill her and any child she bore. So when she eventually betrays him, he had already warned her of his intended actions. Not only this, but he warned her when they both were in a state of euphoric happiness together. Deep down, Shalimar wasn’t blinded by his rage when he decided to kill her. He knew how he’d act if she were to deceive him, and had a clear set goal in mind.
3) What motivates someone to become an assassin, a terrorist, a murderer? And in the enlongated moment of that decision, how do personal, emotional wounds gain political currency enough to justify killing someone? Or killing many people?
ReplyDeleteI’m compelled to blame the media for the stirring up of tensions of one culture against another. In a world where most politicians are egregiously corrupt motivated by personal favors, where special interests and power hungry officials control the media, we are shown what they want us to see. I can’t speak for what motivates one to become a terrorist or murderer, besides the reasons I’ve stated given in Who Speaks for Islam, but when the news plays repetitive video clips of American soldiers killed by the radical Islamists (or just in battle) they often successfully evoke a sense of anger towards the “enemy,” which condensed usually means Islam as a whole. Such coverage may motivate one to join the marines or army, but all too often it’s for the wrong reasons.
4) Rushdie portrays love as a profound, complex, potentially dangerous emotion. In the world of this novel, does true love exist? Or is love negated by distrust and infidelity?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, in the light of this novel, love seems to be overshadowed by an evil cloud of greed for a better life and betrayal. It can be argued, of course, that there are more pleasant moments and relationships, such as the relationship between Pyrelal Kaul and his daughter and his fight to stay alive to keep Boonyi alive. Even Boonyi and Shalimar’s love in the beginning was a profound example of how love forced two different ways of life to converge despite the opposition. However, the book is overwhelmed with sadness and destruction. Shalimar’s example is obvious, but oddly enough, I find myself sympathetic to some degree for General Kachhwaha’s character. His actions were despicable in Kashmir, but a man with an unforgettable memory from a soldier’s perspective must harbor some unspeakable tragedies. The blood spilled and violence he had been witness to certainly shaped his view of the world, and he was degraded by Boonyi when he tried to engage her. A man in his position must see unspeakable things, and characters with this background are rendered incapable of love, as the book manifests.
1.) I feel as though Rushdie portrayed the character of Shalimar to be a malice individual, ultimately representing the stereotype that all terrorists are born with evil in them.
ReplyDelete