Beebe 1
Megan Beebe
Honors Project
3 credits
Spring 2011
The Importance of Haroun and the Sea of Stories Through the Lens of Gulliver’s Travels
With its publication in 1990, Haroun and the Sea of Stories is Salman Rushdie’s first
children’s novel. For this previously strongly political writer, it marks an insight into another
genre of writing to continue his political motives, specifically discussing freedom of expression
in this novel. The story keeps its fairy tale-esque style with adventures to magical lands, talking
fish and a princess in need of rescuing, but behind and even through all these elements, Rushdie
shows the importance of freedom of expression through the adventures of the main character,
Haroun. The importance of freedom of expression is shown in Haroun and the Sea of Stories in
many ways, ranging from statements emphasizing the necessity of free communication to the
development of the plot and the characterization of the opposing sides of the epic battle that
marks the climax of the story.
The use of children’s literature as an outlet to make political statements has been seen
throughout the history of literature. Haroun’s structure parallels a classic children’s book also
known for making political statements: Gulliver’s Travels. Both novels have the main characters
traveling to far off lands with exaggerated circumstances to make statements about society in
general. Both use the genre of children’s literature to make these statements clear and pointed,
despite the fanciful nature of the perspective plots. Haroun and the Sea of Stories is a modern
day example of the use of children’s literature to impact political change, as Gulliver’s Travels
was in its time. Because of the many similarities, Haroun and the Sea of Stories should be
Beebe 2
included in the literary canon alongside Gulliver’s Travels to illuminate the importance of
children’s literature in society throughout time. Both novels shows children’s literature to be a
vessel of political views. Together, the novels show that this kind of vessel transgresses time;
these political ideas are found over centuries of popular literature, these two novels specifically.
Rushdie goes to exuberant levels to make this novel appear to be entirely a children’s
book. From the beginning of the conflict with the blue-bearded water genie to the climactic
shadow ship of the evil Khattam-shud, the novel embraces the genre of children’s literature with
whimsical imagery. It begins with Rashid Khalifa losing his ability to tell stories, his livelihood
that has made him famous in their gloomy world. His wife has left Rashid and their son, Haroun,
for their boring neighbor who believes story-telling is a waste of time. Despite the loss of his
talent, Rashid agrees to speak at a political rally in the Valley of K. The night before, Haroun
catches a blue-bearded water genie, Iff, in the bathroom “for purposes of Disconnection” from
the ocean of stories, the source of all stories in existence (Rushdie 57). Iff is trying to completely
disconnect Rashid from the story world. Through some thievery of Iff’s disconnection tool,
Haroun bargains his way to the land of the Gups on Kahani, the Earth’s second moon that moves
too fast to be seen by Earth’s inhabitants. He goes solely to help save his father’s storytelling and
keep him connected to the ocean, but Haroun gets wrapped up with the talkative Gups in a battle
against the silent Chups, the neighboring nation who kidnapped the Gup princess and are trying
to destroy the sea of stories. While the Gups represent free speech and fun, the Chups represent
silence and repression. Of course, sticking to the fairytale style, Haroun saves the day with the
Gups through valorous acts throughout the rest of the novel.
Through this child-like story, Rushdie emphasizes the importance of freedom of
communication and understanding between the leaders and the people of a nation and the
Beebe 3
cooperation of the two to find the best way to run the country. The talkative Gups discuss every
action, taking in account what the people want (to save the sea) and what the ruling class wants
(to save the princess). This cooperation makes them a peaceful nation until they must battle the
Chups to regain the princess and save their cherished sea. The ruling class originally plans to
battle the Gups solely to get the Princess back with no regard for the sea of stories. The people of
Gup City demand that they save the ocean, shouting it from the streets (91). Instead of being
oppressive and ignoring the requests of the people, the rulers decide to pursue both tasks,
dividing the troops and taking on both missions. They are, of course, successful and save the day
with a happy ending for all, in true fairy tale fashion. The Gups represent a nation with free
communication and emphasize the importance of it through their constant talking. The Chups,
designed to be the epitome of evil in every way, are an oppressed nation where speech is not ever
allowed. Through the association of silence with evil, Rushdie emphasizes the importance of free
speech to successful nations. He builds the simple equations that free communication and
expression equals a successful country; silence equals oppression and unrest and eventual
destruction.
Many critics have viewed these political statements as a reflection limited to Rushdie’s
own life. As Meenakshi Mukherjee says in his analysis of Haroun, “the allegorical relationship
between a storyteller who has lost his power to create and a writer who has been sentenced either
to silence or to death was too strong” to allow the connection to hide behind the fantastic nature
of the story (165). After the publication of his novel Satanic Verses, Rushdie was arrested and
attempted to be silenced by oppressive religious leaders. Specifically, Rushdie was “being
persecuted because of his secular beliefs and because of his overt attack on Islamic
fundamentalism” (Teverson 446). The political statements found in his novels created great
Beebe 4
controversy for many people. He was attempted to be silenced, but Rushdie was protected by the
British government, allowing him to write Haroun. It is not a far stretch to connect a novel
written encouraging the free communication and expression to a suppressed author making a
statement about his own predicament.
Robert L. Ross draws the connection not only of the beliefs of the author to the
statements in the story but also of a specific representation of Rushdie himself in the novel. He
links Rushdie to Rashid, both of whom have lost their ability to tell stories, legally or literally.
The connection can be found on many levels. Ross points out specifically that “Rushdie had met
a great success plumbing what Rashid calls the ‘Ocean of Notions;’ and, like Rashid, he had a
few enemies who thought him the ‘Shah of Blah’—the name given to Rashid by his critics” (95).
Both the author and the fictional character have made their living telling stories and both have
found opposition in doing so. Rushdie’s finds his opposition through religious groups wanting to
censor his books. Rashid’s most blatant opposition in the book is his neighbor, Mr. Segumpta,
who personifies all suppressors, all those who dislike the fanciful, the imagination. Mr.
Segumpta is responsible for the statement that haunts both Rashid and Haroun for the rest of the
novel: “What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?” (Rushdie 20). Mr. Segumpta can’t see
the importance of imagination or the expression there of and thus doesn’t understand, let alone
appreciate, Rashid’s career. Rushdie’s repressors seem to have the same issue, not understanding
Rushdie’s fictional work and seeing it as a threat to their religion.
Eric K.W. Yu takes the application of this novel to Rushdie’s own life a step further,
placing the valley of K in Kashmir, a region in the Indian subcontinent originally only between
two major mountain ranges. Historically, Kashmir was just a valley, so the connection again is
easy to draw. Yu notes that “around mid-1988, less than a year before Rushdie began working on
Beebe 5
the final drafts of the book, Kashmir witnessed the outbreak of the insurgency” (278). In the
novel, Rashid and Haroun have a legion of guards to protect them and the politician for whom
Rashid is speaking (42). The hostility found by Rashid and Haroun is reflective of the mood in
any area with rebellion underfoot as was the case in Kashmir at the time this novel was penned.
The illusion to events affecting Rushdie’s life further tie the novel to Rushdie’s own personal
experiences.
Ultimately, though, this analysis produces the fatal flaw that is found in many literary
critiques: it makes the author the narrator, the lens through which the story is told. Yes, the
events and ideas can relate to Rushdie’s own life, but the need for freedom of expression go
beyond his own experience and relate to those oppressed everywhere. He is not calling for his
own freedom of expression but the freedom of people everywhere to express their ideas in an
open environment. The author is not necessarily the voice of the novel. In most cases, the author
takes on the persona of another character, often very different from themselves, to tell the story.
This is very likely to be the case in Haroun as well. The author’s life experiences probably
sparked the interest in writing a novel such as this, but Rushdie’s own life has little weight on the
overall moral of the novel. The placement of Rushdie’s own life as the purpose of this novel is
too narrow of a motive to write such a novel. The overall concept is much greater than his own
experience; his experience, though relevant, is just a launching point for a much greater idea.
His greater point is the importance of free communication and expression, not just
relating to his life but to all of humanity. The political statement in the novel is not narrow
enough only to consider Rushdie’s own predicament but the fact that his predicament can even
occur in society, that people can be arrested for expression. The suggestion of free
communication and expression in the novel even goes beyond that, though. As Ross says, “No
Beebe 6
one could ignore the book’s political implications even if there had been no real tyrant’s actions
to give them immediacy” (93). Even if there was no real world application to the statement, the
call for free communication and expression is still heard loud and clear. Thus, the novel not only
applies to Rushdie’s life and society in general, it also applies to the general human necessity to
be allowed to express oneself. Judith Plotz makes this claim in her article. She says that “free
idiosyncratic expression of opinion is at once the dominant style and the dominant ideology of
Haroun. Self-expressive talk is human identity and freedom; silence is dehumanization” (102).
This freedom called for in Haroun and the Sea of Stories is a basic human necessity. Without it,
what are we?
This is the ultimate point of Haroun. It is seen through comparing the two lands in the
story. In the land of the Gups, there are individuals with personalities, opinions and names. In the
land of the Chups, there is only the ruler, Khattam-shud, and his nameless henchmen. The
henchmen are all the same, dressed in their “Zipped Lips cloaks and hoods, attending to tanks
and cranes on the deck, performing a series of mindless, routine jobs” (Rushdie 152). There is no
personality, no distinctive traits that make this group anything but a blur of mediocrity. They are
barely characters, with no role other than doing what the Cultmaster, Khattam-Shud, said. They
are only a means to do what Khattam-Shud wants, not people, not human.
Not only do the Chups appear subhuman, they are incredibly dull in every respect. They
look like “sniveling clerical types” who are helping destroy all of the stories in existence (152).
They are portrayed as everything bad without any redeeming qualities, just boring faceless
drones up to no good. They live in the darkness, a characteristic synonymous with evil
throughout literature. The Gups, on the other hand, live in constant light with attitudes that
reflect it. As Butt the mechanical hoopoe explains to Haroun upon their arrival to Gup City, “‘the
Beebe 7
rotation of Kahani has been brought under control. As a result the Land of Gup is bathed in
Endless Sunshine, while over in Chup it’s always the middle of the night’” (80). The Gups have
endless sunshine happiness while the Chups have constant frightening darkness. The Chups are
shrouded in darkness, in evil. Rushdie makes great strides to show how evil the Chups are in
true, over-the-top children’s literature fashion. Latha Rangachari and Evangelini Manickam
discuss this use of darkness in their article, “The Story Teller Silenced: A Study of Rushdie’s
Haroun and the Sea of Stories.” This article states that the darkness is “a frightening symbol of
dictatorship and regimentation” (22). This use of darkness makes the Land of the Chups to be
everything evil: a dark, repressive, destroying regimentation of faceless drones in a sad world.
This is everything the novel speaks out against, everything the Gups aren’t. The two extremes
illustrate the importance of communication through the eventual success of the Gups.
The novel really speaks for itself about the importance of freedom of open
communication, all metaphors aside. It asks the question, through the medium of Butt, “‘what is
the point of giving persons Freedom of Speech… if you then say they must not utilize same?
And is not the Power of Speech the greatest power of all?’” (119). Critics have used this as a
further claim that Rushdie is pushing his personal agenda, placing the author’s voice in the novel
instead of the hoopoe’s. Again, this does relate to Rushdie’s life but goes far beyond that,
making statements concerning all of humanity, not just himself. Regardless, this passage shows
the main theme of the novel that takes it out of the genre of children’s literature and into the area
of respected books to be studied: the importance of free communication and expression. Without
the ability and right to communicate one’s own ideas, whether it be in a verbal way or through a
written means, one does not get to utilize the greatest power a person can have. Rushdie is
calling for both the ability to communicate freely and the action to really do so.
Beebe 8
To push this theme one step further, Rushdie uses the characters’ actions to portray the
importance of discussion, speech and integration of ideas when the Gups and Chups finally meet
to battle for the captured princess and the Sea of Stories:
But then the armies rushed at each other; and Rashid saw, to his great surprise, that the
Chupwalas were quite unable to resist the Guppees. The Pages of Gup [the army], now
that they had talked through everything so fully, fought hard, remained united,
supported each other when required to do so, and in general looked like a force with a
common purpose. All those arguments and debates, all that openness, had created
powerful bonds of fellowship between them. The Chupwalas, on the other hand,
turned out to be a disunited rabble. […] their vows of silence and their habits of
secrecy had made them suspicious and distrustful of one another. They had no faith in
their generals, either. […] after the shortest clash imaginable, [the Chups] simply
threw down their weapons and ran away. (184-185)
Rushdie blatantly states the importance of freed communication in this passage. The free nation
wins the battle because they are not only allowed to but fully exercise the right to discuss every
possible angle of the conflict and see the best way to handle every situation. The Chups have no
idea what to do because they aren’t allowed communicate with each other. They can’t rely on
each other because of this distrustfulness and therefore can’t possibly win. As Teverson says, “A
free society in which there are no limits to what can be said and what can be told, Rushdie is
suggesting, will always prove stronger than a society that is superficially bound by imposing
government policy and enforced ideology” (451). Because the beliefs of Khattam-Shud are
forced on the Chups, they have no loyalty to him or the army, so they flee when the situation gets
difficult; the Gups, on the other hand, stay together to reach their final goals of rescue and
Beebe 9
preservation. Teverson further illustrates Rushdie’s representation of the importance of free
communication when he says, “It is only through free exchange of ideas and words that members
of a community can achieve their full potential” (450). To be a fully functioning city, the people
must work together to find the best solutions, not have one leader dictating every decision and
action. To achieve this, the city must have freedom communication and to allow all ideas to be
presented and actually utilize this goal. This is what Haroun and the Sea of Stories is saying,
what Rushdie is illustrating through his book. This concept derived makes this novel more than a
fantasy children’s book. The call for free communication makes this novel one for readers of all
ages to enjoy and dissect on many levels of understanding.
Haroun and the Sea of Stories does use the specific medium of books, and storytelling in
general, to illustrate the importance of personal expression through free communication. It shows
the power of stories to affect the mindset of the people and to cause political change. As
Mukherjee says, Haroun “demonstrates in a tangible way the thesis that stories can be a cohesive
force in constructing a community” (175). Rushdie does this at the end of the novel when Rashid
has to speak on behalf of Snooty Buttoo, the politician that brought him to the Valley of K in the
first place. Rashid is told to win Mr. Buttoo “the people’s support by telling ‘up-beat, praising
sagas’ and cutting out the ‘gloompuss yarns’” (205). Rashid tells the story of Haroun and
Kahani, the story the reader just finished, which ultimately calls for people to embrace
communication, speak out against unrighteous acts and change what needs to be changed. The
less than popular Buttoo was not pleased with this nor was he reelected. The story changed the
fate of the Valley of K and the lives of the people there, just a simple, fantastical story about a
boy on an adventure to a mystical land. Is Rushdie hoping that his novel will do the same, will
call people to action and cause change in society? It is quite possible that he is hoping for similar
Beebe 10
results. Regardless, the importance of communication is emphasized through the political
movement in the Valley of K.Yu notes the representation of people in general through the Valley
of K, noting that “K is a miniature society where democracy has been corrupted by political
propaganda and autocratic measures” (280). K represents societies everywhere with corrupt
political systems. It also shows how stories, books, can change things for the better, how
freedom of expression can have good effects, how the truth will in fact set one free from
oppression. This is one small, fictional place representing the whole of oppressive societies
throughout the world.
Rushdie shows the significance of expression through books in another way as well: the
Gup army. The Individual soldiers are called pages. In the novel, Butt explains that “‘ordinary
armies are made up of platoons and regiments and suchlike; our Pages are organized into
Chapters and Volumes. Each Volume is headed by a Front, or Title, Page; and up there is the
leader of the entire “Library”, which is our name for the army’” (88). So basically, the fighting
force of the Gups is a library. Rushdie couldn’t make his ultimate concept any more clear than
with this metaphor. He is reiterating the strength of a story, of books, to make strong political
movements and changes. The concept is blatant, almost too obvious for the reader. This is used
because of the genre this book is written: children’s books repeat themselves to make them
memorable and to get their points across. Rushdie is adopting this style to make his important
statement clear. He is showing the power of expression through the written word to support,
change and defend a society. Without free communication, books would not have this power.
Without the Gup Library, the Gups would be powerless as well.
Despite the emphasis on the Gup society being superior to the Chups, Rushdie is not
entirely discrediting the Chups nor is he calling for constant babble like that found in Gup City.
Beebe 11
He is obviously stating the importance of free communication and, more importantly, expression,
but the constant talking is just an exaggeration to show the conflicting sides. Rushdie notes the
beauty of silence when Haroun meets the shadow warrior Mudra, a runaway from KhattamShud’s army and Champion Warrior therein. While watching Mudra practice fighting his own
shadow, Haroun notes that “silence had its own grace and beauty (just as speech could be
graceless and ugly); and that Action could be as noble as Words; and that creatures of darkness
could be as lovely as the children of the light” (125). There is an appeal to silence, to selfcontrol, in some cases. This recognition of the beauty of silence shows the importance of balance
between speech and silence, stating both are important at different times. The balance is
necessary but the freedom to make that choice, to have the ability to say what one is thinking, is
the ultimate necessity.
Even Haroun gets annoyed with the constant speech. After one character, Blabbermouth,
carries on and on about everything she can while she is supposed to be leading him to a place to
sleep, Haroun can’t help but think to himself: “‘Are we getting to my bedroom soon? …Because
I’m not sure how much more of this I can take’” (106). The constant talk can be too much. It’s
better than imposed silence, but ultimately a balance is necessary. Speech for the sake of talking
is frustrating; the choice to actual say something is necessary. Haroun restores balance needed on
Kahani, putting the moon back into orbit and recreating both light and dark for the Gups and
Chups, making night fall “ over Gup City for the first time that anybody could remember, and
the stars of the Milky Way Galaxy filled the sky” (172). The normal rotation of Kahani has
restarted; the light and darkness are balanced again. Thus, the good and evil are balanced as well
as speech and silence. Kahani becomes a place without evil dictators and ends happily ever after
in true fairy tale fashion. This balance also resulted in the creation of a new Chup government,
Beebe 12
one that pursues “long and lasting peace with Gup, a peace in which Night and Day, Speech and
Silence, would no longer be separated into Zones” (191). The entire moon is now a unified,
peaceful place that strives to stay in balance.
Overall, Haroun and the Sea of Stories shows the need for open communication, the
freedom to offer criticism and input, in a successful nation. It also shows the need to keep a
steady balance of this communication. People should be given the choice to speak and use it to
help society move forward and improve. People should be allowed to not only say their opinions
but also publish ideas in a book. This concept is made clear through the use of fantastical
circumstances and characters found throughout Haroun. The use of a children’s novel like this
one to make a statement about society is found over the course of literary history. There are
many classic children’s books that use the same idea. One specific example is Gulliver’s Travels.
Gulliver’s Travels on the most basic surface value is a children’s book. It has been
reworked to be exactly that on countless occasions. If the grotesque aspects are removed, the
basic storyline is a journey to faraway places with unusual creatures and customs. The time
period in which it was written also connects it to the genre of children’s literature. As Lionel
Basney states, “It seems only natural to us that the eighteenth century should have taken
Gulliver’s Travels for a children’s story” (148). Another book with strange travels, Gulliver’s
Travels uses imaginary worlds to make very adult political statements. Swift uses extreme and
even silly situations to show characteristics of humans that are usually swept under the rug, so to
speak. Swift’s use of the fantasy world, with giants and dwarves, pushes this novel into the
children’s literature genre; it even makes it, as Leslie Stephen says, “almost the most delightful
children’s book ever written” (170). Since Stephen wrote this in the late nineteenth century, this
statement shows the response of society around the time the novel was written and first became
Beebe 13
popular. Of course, Gulliver’s Travels goes far beyond the genre of children’s literature, being
mostly satire in nature, thus making Haroun comparable to it since they were both written as
children’s books and are both making political statements. Swift also uses the comparison of two
extremes to prove his point. First, Swift juxtaposes the tiny Lilliputians in Book 1 to the giants of
Brobdingnag in Book 2. He also juxtaposes the emotional, instinctive Yahoos to the rational,
logical Houyhnhnms in Book 4. Swift uses extremes in both cases to illustrate different views
and ways of looking at situations to make political statements and suggesting a need for balance
of power in society.
The parallels between Haroun and the Sea of Stories and Gulliver’s Travels are countless.
To begin, they both have the same voyage structure. In both books, the main character travels to
distant lands and meets entirely different societies that actually reflect issues on Earth. As
Maynard Mack says in his discussion of Gulliver, “the intent of the imaginary voyages was
almost always to satirize the existing European order, and it did so by playing up the innocence,
manliness, and high ethical standards of the untutored peoples whom the voyager claimed to
have met” (111). Books 1, 2 and 4 in Gulliver’s Travels are satirizing European political and
social order through the lens of entirely different and even strange worlds. The same can be said
about Haroun and the Sea of Stories. The imaginary voyages in this novel are satirizing
repressive governments throughout the world through the extreme chattiness and silence of the
Gups and Chups.
The extremes of Gulliver make multiple statements instead of one clear one like Haroun,
but the same format is found in both. Swift is also not showing good parts of society; he is
instead illuminating the less honorable parts in which he sees problems. As Mack notes, “when
Gulliver goes among his fantastic aborigines, he is always encountering, instead of handsome
Beebe 14
and noble savages, aspects of man as he perennially is, whether in civilized society or in nature”
(112). He is seeing the parts of society that need fixed. In the land of the little Lilliputian,
Gulliver sees pettiness and the emphasis on matters and rituals that are really pointless to the
overall society. As Stephen states, Swift wrote Book 1 so the audience sees “the pettiness and
cruelty of the Lilliputians, who want to conquer an empire defended by toy-ships. . . . He really
means to express bitter contempt for statesmen and warrior. . . by asking us to look at a
diminutive representation of the same beings” (177). In the land of the big Brobdingnagians,
Gulliver sees the physicality of humanity, the grotesque side of humans that is not really
discussed, especially at the time this novel was written. It shows the disdain of humans for
anything less than, in human eyes, themselves. As Mack states, “in this country, Gulliver is
constantly being appalled by circumstances of coarseness” (112). The Lilliputians represent the
petty side of society in their smallness while the Brobdingnagians represent the vulgar side of
humanity in their largeness.
The juxtaposition of these extremes in Gulliver is not quite the same as the juxtaposition
in Haroun, though. The books do use extreme circumstances to make a point about society, like
Haroun, just not against one another. In Rushdie’s novel, the two sides are polar opposites of
themselves. Swift does something similar in Book 4. In this section, Swift makes the Yahoos, the
human-looking characters uncivilized and extremely irrational. Mack states it best when he says
that the audience sees “embodied in them that extreme view of man as hopelessly irrational,
decadent, and depraved” (112). The Yahoos are the lowest of the low, acting in irrational,
emotional ways that Gulliver’s society takes great measures to repress and contain.
On the other side of this comparison are the Houyhnhnms, creatures that look like horses
but are the epitome of rational thinking. These creatures disregard any emotions and function
Beebe 15
solely on logic and reason. They are the opposite of the Yahoos who do everything through
emotional responses without any thought or logic. This is quite the opposite of what Swift’s
audience, earthly society, would expect. They would expect humans to be the logical creatures
and the horses to be the ones lacking thought and using only instinct and emotions. This reversal
is used to make a very serious point. By using horses to display what is assumed as exclusively
human characteristics, logic and rational thinking, Swift “make[s] it quite plain that pure
rationality is not available to man” (Mack 113). This extreme rationality, free from any passion
whatsoever, is not possible for man to accomplish because of the emotions found in all humans.
“For the truth, as we are meant to realize, is that man is neither irrational physicality like the
Yahoos nor passionless rationality like the Houyhnhnms” (Mack 113). The fact that this purely
rational society is not possible for mankind shows that this extreme case of perfect but
passionless society is not attainable. Fortunately, though, the Yahoo lifestyle is also avoidable
through self-control.
According to Stephen, the Houyhnhnms “represent Swift’s Utopia; they prosper and are
happy, truthful and virtuous, and therefore able to dispense with lawyers, physicians, ministers
and all the other apparatus of an effete civilization” (182). That would make this rational way of
life the perfect situation. Swift is obviously showing favoritism to this society, having Gulliver
actually join them and mimic them in an attempt to reach perfection, but he shows that the
Houyhnhnms are not actually perfect. Their way of life drives Gulliver to insanity upon his
return home. He is angry and resentful of his family, calling them Yahoos and refusing to live in
his house. He slowly re-assimilates but never loses the mindset of the Houyhnhnms (Swift 242).
This insanity, for that’s all it really seems to be, is quite the opposite of rational thinking.
Gulliver’s need to be entirely rational has made him quite the opposite. Because of this behavior,
Beebe 16
it is understandable that Mack draws the conclusion that “neither extreme answers to the actual
human situation, and Swift, despite the persistence with which this voyage has been
misinterpreted, is careful to show us this” (113). The seemingly perfect Houyhnhnm world is not
that; some Yahoo influence must be present to remain sane, at least in the human world of Earth.
Ultimately, then, Book 4 calls for a need for moderation. It weighs heavily on the
importance of rationality, but some emotion and passion are needed to remain human and sane.
Kathleen Williams discusses this need for balance when comparing Gulliver’s Travels to variety
of literature written by Swift and others. She notes the commonality found in literature of
“choosing a middle between two extremes, and an allegorical version of the same idea can be
seen in Gulliver’s Travels” (102). She sees this call for moderation, for a middle ground, seen in
the satire of Swift. Mack agrees, stating that “this middle view has been the theme from the very
beginning” (113). The Lilliputians need to balance their little pettiness; the Brobdingnagians,
their vulgarity. The Yahoos are by far too instinctual and strictly passionate while the
Houyhnhnms are too rational. A balance is needed for all.
This is the same idea found in Haroun and the Sea of Stories. Rushdie calls for a balance
between speech and silence, between good and evil, between light and dark, and so does Swift.
“Swift’s instrument in this blending of light and shadow is the assumed identity, Gulliver”
(Mack 113). Gulliver’s explorations and reactions show the need for balance in society through
his explorations of these many varying lands. Gulliver sees different sizes, shapes and lifestyles
of people on his journey. He may remain hopeless at the end, but the audience he is speaking to
can find need for moderation through the hyperbolic discussion of issues in society.
Although the specific concepts differ, the structures of the two stories are similar, and the
general concepts are the same. Both have adventures to faraway fantasy lands with entirely
Beebe 17
different people, ideas, places, and overall society. The main characters are placed in a world
that, at face value, is entirely different from their own. With further investigation, though,
readers of the two novels can draw parallels between the fantasy worlds they find themselves in
and the worlds from which they originally came. The use of travel to unknown lands make the
illustrations of political issues obvious by showing extreme circumstances of problems in the
worlds from which the main characters come. Haroun has a happier ending, making it more
child-like, with all problems solved and everyone happy. Gulliver ends with indecision and
unrest in the main character. In Gulliver, no answers entirely found by the character himself but
the audience can easily find a call for moderation.
Because of its political undertones and the relation to Gulliver’s Travels, Haroun and the
Sea of Stories is a novel worth studying, dissecting and analyzing to its fullest extent. Its
simplicity at surface value is a shroud easily removed to find a complex, intriguing blend of
satire and metaphors. Its deeper meaning extends beyond a simple good versus evil story, beyond
a typical adventure story with the main character saving the day. Haroun is a novel that calls
society into action, that demands freedom of expression in a world where there are still places
that don’t allow it. Because of the societal reflections in the novel, Haroun and the Sea of Stories
is a book to study for years to come, one that should and will be considered a classic in literature
one day.
When studied, Haroun can easily be paired with Gulliver’s Travels to make further
observations about the impact of children’s literature on society. When studied together, the two
novels show similar structures used throughout literary history to convey serious political ideas
through the lens of children’s literature. The use of the children’s literature genre in both of these
novels allows for exaggerated circumstances needed to stress the importance of the political
Beebe 18
concepts portrayed. Also, placing the two novels together shows the importance of not only
children’s literature but also all literature on society. Both novels use this outlet to show opinions
and possibly, even hopefully, change society, call people to action. Children’s literature is not
often thought to convey societal conflicts and opinions. It appears to be only whimsical
entertainment for children. Underneath that silliness, though, are often more serious concepts, as
seen in these two novels. Although Haroun has no historical basis on Gulliver, both novels do
have similar formats with similar purposes. Because the novels relate to such a degree with
similar structures, formats and motives behind the text, it is possible to predict the future of
Haroun based on the success of Gulliver’s Travels. Gulliver has been one of the most studied
novels in history, is a title known by most people, by everyone who enjoys reading novels. The
number of studies on the novel is extensive and will continue to grow throughout time. It is a
novel that will always be studied. Haroun, with all the similarities, has the potential to do the
same. Even over the last year, the number of studied on the book that have surfaced has grown
astronomically. If Haroun and the Sea of Stories is anything like Gulliver, which it obviously is,
then it will most likely follow the path of Gulliver’s Travels and be studied for centuries to come.
Beebe 19
Works Cited
Baena, Rosalia. "Telling a Bath-Time Story: Haroun and the Sea of Stories as a Modern Literary Fairy
Tale." The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 36.2 (2001): 65-76. ILLiad. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.
Basney, Lionel. "Gulliver and the Children." The Voice of the Narration in Children's Literature:
Insights From Writers and Critics (1989): 148-58. ILLiad. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
Mack, Maynard. "Gulliver's Travels." Swift. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. 111-14. Print.
Mukherjee, Meenakshi. "Politics and Children's Literature: A Reading of "Haroun and the Sea of
Stories"" Ariel 29.1 (1998): 163-77. ILLiad. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
Plotz, Judith. "Haroun and the Politics of Literature." Children's Literature Association Quarterly 20.3
(1995): 100-04. ILLiad. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
Rangachari, Latha, and Evangelini Manickam. "The Story Teller Silenced: A Study of Rushdie's Haroun
and the Sea of Stories." The Literary Criterion 30.4 (1995): 15-24. ILLiad. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
Ross, Robert L. "Reading Afterwords Afterwards: Haroun and the Sea of Stories." South Asian Review
16.13 (1992): 93-97. ILLiad. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
Rushdie, Salman. Haroun and The Sea of Stories. New York: Viking Penguin, 1990. Print.
Stephen, Leslie. Swift. Detroit: Gale Research, Book Tower, 1968. Print.
Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels and Other Writings. New York: Random House, 1958. Print.
Teverson, Andrew S. "Fairy Tale Politics: Free Speech and Multiculturalism in Haroun and the Sea of
Stories." Twentieth-Century Literature 47.4 (2001): 444-65. ILLiad. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
Williams, Kathleen. Jonathan Swift and the Age of Compromise. 3rd ed. Lawrence, KS: University of
Kansas, 1967. Print.
Beebe 20
Yu, Eric K.W. "Salman Rushdie's Magical Journey Through Kashmir: Haroun and the Sea of Stories,
(Post-)coloniality, and the Fairy Tale." Crossings (2001): 277-96. ILLiad. Web. 13 Feb. 2011.