|
Mahound and Yeshua, despite what many of the critics aver, are the true heroes of their respective novels. These archetypal artists positively influence all the novels' characters, including the reader, who hear their stories and attempt to relate them to their individuality. Their struggle to be heard, their will to withstand temptation, and their courage to maintain their beliefs whatever the consequences make them figures to be admired and emulated more so than the product of their struggle. Rushdie admires those like Yeshua and Mahound who "attempt radical reformations of language, form and ideas, those that attempt to do what the word novel seems to insist upon: to see the world anew. I am well aware that this can be a hackle-raising, infuriating attempt" ("Faith" 393). Rushdie, like his character Mahound, has stood relatively firm in his expression of truth--even through a sentence of death--since 1989, and has only recently reemerged. |
| Suleri quotes the poet Iqbal: |
The prophet's return [from his union with Gabriel] is creative. He returns to insert himself into the sweep of time with a view to control the forces of history, and thereby to create a fresh world of ideals. . . . Thus his return amounts to a kind of pragmatic test of the value of religious experience. (617).
|
| This creative expression, continues Suleri, is also relevant to the "Mahound" chapter of Verses; the chapter is also a "pragmatic test of the value of the religious experience." It makes the reader wonder "What kind of idea is he? What kind am I?" and contemplate from within his or her own consciousness about the truth (Suleri 617). |
| Indeed, even asking oneself that question takes courage. An examination of our lives and how we live them can be terrifying. Unfortunately, many humans never examine their existence and end their lives much like Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych who realizes after it is too late that he never truly lived. The pain of introspection and examination will only make our lives richer if it does not kill us. Will we be like Gibreel, the slave to others' tyrannical wishes, or will we be like the master and Chamchawala and share our lives with someone who loves us and inspires us to reach for our own truths? The choice is every individual's to make--each of us just has to ask the question: "What kind of idea am I?" |
| The blind conformity to any notion, belief, or ideal without consulting the inner artist is truly the ultimate evil. Arenberg states that "the master demonstrates that each man's salvation lies within himself," and that "Bulgakov recognized that men follow the path of least resistance, denying their own imaginative capabilities in favor of institutionalized ideologies, organized religion, and conventional morality" (123, 121). Proffer agrees, for she subits that the coming of the storm after the crucifixion of Yeshua "presages . . . the coming of a new religion, Christianity," and that will no longer require humanity to question--just follow (553). But faith in "gospel truth" is, at least for Rushdie and Bulgakov, never enough--it leaves those unfortunate non-thinkers open to all kinds of satanic verses. |
| Finally, "Manuscripts don't burn" because of love. Each protagonist in both the Verses and Master are linked with a lover: the master has Margarita, Farishta has Alleluia Cone, and Saladin has Zeenat Vakil. One needs love, states Rushdie, "not only the need to be believed in, but to believe in another" (Verses 49). Through this loving relationship, going back to Plato's Symposium, one can climb the ladder of love to realize the truth. The lover supports the artist and helps him reach his true potential; Margarita "drove him on and started calling him 'the master.' She waited impatiently for the promised final words about the fifth Procurator of Judea, reading out loud in a loud singsong random sentences that pleased her and saying that the novel was her life" (Master 142); and later she stands resolutely by the master: "we must see it through together" (Master 355). |
| Indeed, states Bulgakov, "one who loves must share the fate of his loved one" (369). This statement holds true on several levels. First, lovers literally share the same fate in both novels; the consequences of love depend on that which is loved. Margarita shares the master's earned rest, Berlioz shares the fate of his beloved atheism, and Pilate's dog awaits an end to the pain like his master. Allie Cone dies with Farishta, Mahound's followers become powerful both economically and spiritually, and Zeenat and Salahuddin begin a new life together. Through love, courage, and conflict, humans may have sympathy for the devil and continue to be healthily blasphemous. |
