Printable View
Hi everyone. Salman Rushdie has just won the 40th anniversary of the Booker awards with "Midnight's Children". He also won the 25th anniversary award with the same book, after winning it originally in 1981. Has anyone read it, and what do you think? I would like to read it, but I have such a large TBR pile at the moment. Am I missing a great book, should I bump it to the top of the pile, or is it all hype? :)
It was the August read last year. Only two members voted, but it stands with the highest rating.
I am providing you with the link to the thread; comments span only three pages.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=27053
Ah well... I read The Satanic Verses and Midnight's Children,and although they're really good (he is definitely better than 99% of today's writers in my opinion),I still think a great deal of it is just hype. I guess the best way to know is to read and form your own opinion though...
Thanks guys. It definitely sounds interesting, but I thought it may be a "difficult" read, with elements of magical realism etc. I will probably give it a go at some point, but perhaps not yet. I'll stick with my current pile. I do like the sound of his latest as well, "The Enchantress of Florence", but as I haven't read any of his, I may be mistaken by what sounds a good synopsis. I will probably buy it for the Library, and then I can have a little sneaky peek.
;)
I need to read some of his stuff. The only thing I know about him is that he was in Bridget Jones' Diary.
Last year I desperately tried to get into Midnight's Children but I failed. Because I had to return the book to the library, I couldn't carry on; however, it is still one of the books I will be reading sometime this year.
Last august?:eek: I started it for the book club but I'm still only halfway through. It's pretty drawn out.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
I've also read Shalimar the Clown and that was pretty good.
Ugh! I gave up on shalimar the clown after a few chapters!
[QUOTE=wessexgirl;596085]I would like to read it, but I have such a large TBR pile at the moment.QUOTE]
Well, it seems that I am having the same problem. i bought Midnight's Children a few weeks ago, and it has been gathering dust on one of my bookshelves. I am a bit afraid that I am missing out on a special author, but I don't seem to be able to start. I've read The Satanic Verses, but I guess if a book achieves such a reaction you really should consider reading it.
I think some of the responses echo what I was suspecting. I've no doubt that he is a very good writer, adored by the critics, and I have no problem with that. I just thought his work may be a bit heavy-going for a good, gripping, un-put-downable-read. But the fact that this book has won the Booker 3 times suggests it's something really special. The poll for the Best of the Booker was voted for by the public, not the critics, although the shortlist was drawn up by a handful of them, and there were some glaring omissions, imo. I do like the sound of this book, but it doesn't sound like it's gripped some of you who are reading it, or who attempted to read it.
Midnight's Children is wonderful. It's full of beautiful little stories. I know the magical realism and historical allegory about India sounds like hard going but there's so many interesting strands to keep you reading, like the bit about the old Muslim alcoholic who tells his children that he drinks to ward off "djinns", and the love triangle involving Mumtaz, the dark sister.
At least you have that going for you :D All I know is I think (correct me if I'm wrong) he has some kind of bounty over his head for something he's written. At least I think so..Quote:
Originally Posted by coolestnerdever
I did get an email saying he won the Booker but I never read any of his works yet.
I agree with Johann's "he is definitely better than 99% of today's writers in my opinion". I made it %90. I 've read very less of Booker winners, so I can't say it was not the best book but I have surprised it prized 3 times.
What they are generally mistaken, is, they think literature is made of stories. Rushdie is a good story teller, but if your style is magic realism it is more and more easier. Men can fly, other one can live 5 century, another turns into a tiger, etc. In such a stories cacophony you lose your criticism glasses, you cant easily judge the value of the work of art. My opinion, Rushdie's prose and set-up scale not strong as his story-teller side.
And, suit wearing writers gang, please stop in search of "a great book, exploration of entire society through the story of a person" praise.
I guess that's aimed at me, since I do sometimes wear a suit, I do write and I'm the only person who's alluded to the fact that Midnight's Children is an allegory for the progress of independent India.Quote:
Originally Posted by tractatus
To be fair, that's not at all the reason why I love Midnight's Children, and I certainly don't think a book has to cover that kind of grand topic to be a great book. On the other hand, you can't deny, that is what Midnight's Children is about, among other things.
I have not read Midnight's Children, but it's either second or third on my TBR list right now, so it shouldn't be too long. I did, however, read The Satanic Verses and found it to be without equal among the current short list of canonical writers in out time who are both critically and commercially accepted (a very short list!) I don't think Rushdie is the writer of our time, but I do think he's skilled enough to make it into the canon. The Satanic Verses had a very puzzling effect on me. It have a sweeping epic quality that feels more like it should have been written one or two centuries ago; Like a Victor Hugo novel set in modern times, almost.
So, yes, I would reccomend bumping Rushdie up somewhat on your reading list, wessexgirl.
I disagree. I don't think telling an excellent story gets any more or less easy according to the amount of unrealistic elements you employ. That's why some of our greatest authors (Dante and Shakespeare among them) had these elements in their masterpieces. That's also why I can't stand the vast majority of sci-fi and fantasy being published today. Good storytelling is a talent in any medium. I would also argue that Rushdie's prose is at least equal with almost any popular writer today, and possibly even with those that have stood the test of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tractatus
Hi guys. Thanks for all your input. I just saw this today, which is quite interesting. If anyone would like a go......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7500575.stm
2 more views on the importance, (or not) of Rushdie's acclaimed work.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ph-865049.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ph-865048.html
No, what I want to say is, some writers; Rushdie, Grass, Fuentes, Pamuk like to write on big scale, try to tell a country's story in some hundred pages, i was joking about this impossible mission.Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickbeverley
But I agree. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Crow
Of course telling an excellent story don't make it great or worthless.
I can't compare Homer's, Dante's works to nowadays. That was not what i want to say. Using magical realist elements(add epic, surreal or fantastic) may "hide" the literary value, not "reduce". Story should not be exalted overmuch. There are literary masterpieces that dont have story, even a plot.
Story of the novel, is like the melody of a music. You dont listen music only for melody, but for instruments, type(rock or jazz or etc.), lyrics...
Sorry for my poor expression, I generally agree with your paragraph.
Ah, Okay. As long as you're not in the camp that dismisses some works of literature because it employs elements of fantasy, then we're cool. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tractatus