In February, we will be reading Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdi.
Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.
Printable View
In February, we will be reading Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdi.
Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.
Since some of you might be reading the book still, I will not go into detail not to spoil the story but when I finished reading it, I was surprised that I was not as impressed as I had thought I would have been.
It was a good story, kept me reading... Funny at places, intriguing at others; however, for some reason, I did not feel that Rushdi did it all for the right reasons (yes, a lot of judgement on my behalf, but since I paid for the book and read it patiently, I am entitled to that much judgement, right? ;) ).
I just started reading this this morning. So far so good. I like the conversational, slightly rambly, slightly story-tellery style. Not sure where it's going but there's a good 600+ pages yet to figure that out.
Starting it today.
I loved the narrative style of this book. I have to say from the very first page it had grasped my attention. There is something that I found very easy to read about it. It does keep my interesting, and I like the strangeness of it, and the touches of humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I'm at about 60 pages into the book at the point the "Hummingbird" is introduced. I'm enjoying it so far. It is appearnt that Saleem's nose is key to the story given the number of references to it.
Haha whenever I read about that I could not help but to picture this cartoonishly large nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle
I'm about 300 pages in and I love it so far. The narrative style, the characters, the chain of events unfolding, all have me hooked.
I'm About two thirds if the way through, and while I couldn't get into it at first, ever since it began focusing solely on Sakeem's life story, I've enjoyed it much more. It seemed, up until that point, it really lacked cohesiveness, and even had me going to Sparknotes to make sure I actually understood the actions of what I just read.
I like the surreal aspect of the book--although I haven't read a ton of it, I really do like the genre of "magical realism."
One thing confuses me, and maybe some of you would like to flex your cloe-reading muscles, but I've noticed the narrator on occasion switch from referring to his pasr self as "I" to using third person references like "he," "him," and even using his name, "Saleem." I'm wondering why he does that. It conveys a distance between the narrator's present self and his last self, as if he doesn't want to acknowledge that it was actually him. He only does it every once in a while, though. I'm think maybe he does it only during negative aspects of the story, such as things he'd be ashamed if, but I haven't payed enough attention to them times he uses this technique to confirm it.
Interesting. Maybe you could explain this a bit more? Just make sure to add a spoiler tag if need be. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Hmm, I'm having similar problems to the problems I have reading Don Quixote; I enjoy it, but its an effort to pick it up and keep going. So I enjoy it but I'm not enjoying it. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense. I find myself wanting to read something else. Not a good sign. I think I'm finding it self indulgent. Rushdie comes across as an arrogant writer.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Yes I can see your point about that. It is true that I did find the story seemed to pick up a bit more once it began speaking of Sakeem's story, and the back story, about the history of his grandfather, and mother father, felt like a really long lead in to get to his actual story. I agree that it was a bit confusing at first and there were moments I found hard to follow and was uncertain as to what was happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I also have to say one of the things which I found quite interesting when we finally go to Sakeem's own story, was learning of the various different gifts and abilities that the other midnight's children had.
I love surrealism. I find anything that questions and challenges are perceptions of reality, or bends reality to be fascinating, and I love reading books of this nature, they always entrance me. I am usually always up for anything of the bizarre nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
That is interesting, I have to admit that I never actually noticed that but now that you bring it up I will have to pay attention to look for those occasions. I do rather like the idea of his trying to distance himself from the negative aspects of the story.
I can't help but wonder if Rushdie got some inspiration from the X-Men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I agree, and what I like a lot a out magical realism is how it blends surrealism with reality (of course, making the genre name quite apt). I like the subtlety, where it really makes you wonder about the narrator and how much he is to be trusted.Quote:
I love surrealism. I find anything that questions and challenges are perceptions of reality, or bends reality to be fascinating, and I love reading books of this nature, they always entrance me. I am usually always up for anything of the bizarre nature.
Now that is an interesting thought, though in a way it actually makes a sort of crazy sense. Now you are going to have my picturing Saleem as Doctor Xavier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The one thing of which I was left confused about, and maybe it is not supposed to make sense, of maybe I just missed something, but how is it that they made this big point of Saleem inheriting his grandfather's nose, only for the reader to discover that in fact Dr. Aziz was not in fact his real grandfather.
Also I find the Padma character and her relationship to Saleem to be interesting. I do find those little interlude to be quite amusing.
Yes, I agree with you. I myself love the subtly of it as well. And I myself love evaluating the question of the unreliable narrator, so I do like the extra challenge that this genre of writing gives the reader in considering that. While on the one hand the reader is supposed to bend the rules of reality a bit and accept certain things which defy logic and reason (we are not intended I do not think to simply believe that Saleem is altogether delusional) and yet on the other hand when put in that situation it does leave the door open for more questions of just how much can truly be trusted and taken at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
It kind of makes me think of this book I recently finished in which while on the one hand one could easily view the ending as having been nothing but a dream or that the character could have truly just become delusional, but on the other hand it leaves the impression that the author intends the reader to perceive the event as having actually happened but it is still open enough where the reader can come to their own interpretation.
I love the padma interludes. I'm wondering as I enter the last hundred pages or so if she will be a part of some sort of "twist," or shown to be more integral to the plot. I suspect not, but you never know, especially in a novel like this.
I too wondered about the nose, and also wondered if maybe I too misinterpreted something. It seems like a pretty glaring inconsisitency for Rushdie to make, and on top of that keep referring to. Maybe that will also become clear in the later pages of the story.
I kept trying to figure out if had something to do with the idea that perhaps he was fated to become their child, or has something to do with the prophecy around his birth. I do recall there was some remark made during the time of the switching of the birth, along the lines of, even after the truth was discovered it did not matter because nothing would change that he was their child, or that they knew that he was still their child all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I'm further behind than others posting here, but I wanted to add that I was experiencing similar struggles as you mention above. After about ninety pages in and what already seemed like ninety characters introduced, I was forced to print off a character list to help keep track…and that is just Book One characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Btw – Wikipedia has a decent character list with concise descriptions, proving to be an invaluable aid so far making it easier to follow the course of the story including sudden tacks.
Here’s the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ren_characters
“On August 6th the illness broke. On the morning of the 9th Mumtaz was well enough to take a little solid food.”- two dates which gave me pause. The allusion to those two significant dates in history was clever, followed by; “…can you imagine how the insides of his nose felt?” and “…because he had this bombshell to drop…”- referring to the two year marriage that had not been consummated.
I’m nearing the 100 page point and I’m enjoying it so far.
.
I am curious about the portrayal of women within the book. I began to notice a trend in portraying women who are physically strong, and I am curious about what the meaning might be since it seems to come up so frequently.
There were the women wrestlers who acted as body guard to Naseem Ghani
And than there is the Brass Monkey, and the incident in which she began to hang out with the female swimmers who than wrestled Sonny to the ground and stripped him of his clothing.
Evie Lilith Burns who is quite the rough and tumble tomboy
and there is a scene in which Saleem is describing Padma and he focuses upon the strength and power of her muscles, and how strong her legs are and the fact that her arms could wrestle is down.
This also seems to contrast against the way in which the "maternal" women of the story or portrayed.
Ironcialy there is a point in the story where Mrs Dubash is said to have reinventied the story of Superman when her son Cyrus-the-Great become a guru.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Well, seeing as it was written in the very heart of the feminist movement, I can't help but assume Rushdie was heavily influenced by that. In a book that is already tinkering heavily with what things "should be" (odd narrative, odd main character, odd narration, odd grammar, etc.) his decision to toy with how women have usually been portrayed by making them strong, even in a literally absurd sense as we see with the woman wrestlers, doesn't surprise me.
I wonder if the characters such as the women wrestlers, which are set up as a bit outrageous, or least to use your word, comes off as a bit odd, an in this sort of extreme way of showing the equality and perhaps in some cases superiority(?) to men, considering the examples of women actually physically overpowering men, are meant as a challenge to the seemingly more traditional women such as Naseem Ghani and Amina Sinai.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
There does seem to be two very distinct portrayals of women offered within the book. One being a more old world/traditionally view of women. The women who do take on the role of mothers and wives, while may be strong in their own way, have the kind of strength which is most stereotypically associated with women. They often tend to be long suffering, vulnerable, having the power of endurance, and living in unhappy marriages.
Than there are the Padma's the women wrestlers, the Brass Monkey, and Evie (whose middle is ironically Lilith, who has become to be a very a fort of feminist archetype) who are much more modernized, more liberated to and challenge typical gender roles and views of women to a point touching upon. In fact I wonder if in a way they have become caricatures of feminism?
It's hard to put into words. I get the feeling that Rushdie is playing with us as readers but not in a nice way, more a 'look how much cleverer I am than you' kind of way. It's not really quantifiable, but after 400 pages I still feel excluded. I suppose its like the difference between someone saying 'look what I can do, watch me, watch me, watch me' and someone saying 'let me share this with you'. I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense, but the feeling persists all the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Don't you just love quoting yourself? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
That is somewhat how I felt it as well, Fifth... That Rushi was not sincere in his efforts - whatever that might mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I disagree about his attitude. I think that's difficult to establish from this. What I am getting from it is a great sense of narrative exploration, which doesn't always work, but when it does presents a wide ranging but vivid description of events and characters. I feel I'm made to work hard at the text to keep track of what's happening, but in this Rushdie is not leading us by the usual narrative nose, (ha ha), and as a consequence is not patronising in his presentation. He expects that we will get the references and story and appreciate the rich style. This is for the modern reader; someone who is able to followthis complexity. A 19th century novel woukld not be written this way as a 10th century reader would not be able to make head nor tail of it. I think it capitalises upon our modern, ongoing narrative experience.
I get what you're saying. I think doing the whole "messing with the reader" thing is a risky game. And I think there's always a certain pompousness by the author when using this technique, because I think it does take arrogance to write this way--the author sort of has to think he's cleverer in the first place I'd he wants to pull it off. For the reader, I think it can work well, and when it does it's a great read. But when it doesn't, the author's arrogance really shines.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I guess it's a matter of figuring out why it doesn't work for you, though. So, do you not like the story, the style of writing, the absurdism, or are you just not a fan of this kind of story-telling in general? I can understand any of those, really.
Just finished. I'd give it a 9/10 (I rounded up). I really enjoyed this book.
I also read that MC was named the best of the Booker award winners--the Booker of the Booker winners, if you will.
Completely agree. It's not an easy read (though, after the first hundred pages, I found it much easier than many other books I've read), and in later chapters my biggest difficulty was keeping track of the different characters. Plus, reading this on my iPad came really in handy since I could quicky go to Wikipedia to look up any of the references to Indian culture/politics that were made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
In regards to earlier comments made about the way in which the author changes the narrative approach between 1st person and 3rd person in how Saleem speaks of himself, I do not know if it is just because I am more aware of it now but it seems to me that towards the later part of the book Saleem begins to more frequently refer to himself in the 3rd person.
I found this to be quite interesting and I wonder if it is because as the story is progressing nearer to the present, Saleem feels the need to distance himself more from the events because the memories are fresher so it becomes more emotionally harder to deal with. Or if it is because of his greater feeling of shame/guilt in his own actions and feelings that makes him want to remove himself more from this past version of himself.
Just one clarification: I'm not saying that Rushdie is arrogant, but that he comes over as arrogant. It's hard for me to really pin on whether it's him as the writer or the character. I guess I'd have to read something else by him to establish that, but at the moment I'm not inclined.
I don't really agree with that assessment, I think that's really difficult to judge. For a start, I don't think we're really in a position to assess the abilities of a 19th C reader over a contemporary reader. You'd have to assess readers from where (are we just talking W European here?) as, for example, the Chinese and Japanese were writing complex novels back as far as the 11th Century (think The Tale of Genji). Also, what about writers like Tolstoy, Guy de Maupassant, Emile Zola, Thomas Hardy, Dostoyevsky, George Eliot, Hawthorne, Melville, Dickens, Balzac the list goes on. Are you really saying that those writers are not the match in complexity of Rushdie or that their readers didn't grasp or follow the narrative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
On the other hand, there are other contemporary writers who have written novels of great complexity without this sense of 'showing off' that I've got from reading Rushdie. I'm thinking of, say, David Mitchell (but when am I not thinking of David Mitchell :D) or Umberto Eco, each of who write novels with amazing scope, with incredible skill, intelligence and complexity. But not in a way that excludes the reader which is the sense I'm getting here. But then I also acknowledge that this may well be a narrative technique by Rushdie because I've been thinking about this point which Mutatis mentioned and which Muse has followed up on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
My sense on this is that the character, Saleem, is mythologising his own history. And so he talks in the third person because he is presenting himself as a character in his own narrative - Saleem the principal Midnight's child, Saleem of the magical nose, Saleem the buddha, etc etc. And so when he is talking in the third person it is Saleem as the character, not Saleem as the narrator, you're dealing with. Maybe. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
There might be a cultural angle here. There are many cultures that value attributes in women which are not rooted in stick thinness and their ability to perform complex gymnastics on a pole. Maybe it's a reflection on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I like this idea. It makes a lot of sense to me. It'd be interesting to see when he refers to himself in the third person and if it corresponds with the more mythological and fantastical parts of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
No, I wouldn't say that those great writers don't match up to Rushdie, but their 19th century readers might not follow the narrative style Rushdie uses. I think today we benefit from the narrative exploration of lots of writers, and I think Rushdie capitalises on this. His paragraphs are packed with references back and forth in the novel, and there's a continent spanning cultural awareness going on - India, The US, the UK and colonialism. I was looking at The Count of Monte Christo not long after starting this novel, and what struck me was this different and developed narrative style that really makes the reader work. My favourite so far is the chapter "Many Headed Monsters" which weaves the Diwali myth into the cash payment that Ahmed makes, and Amina's visit to the seer. It's complex, and requires a certain knowledge of Hindu mythology to appreciate it fully.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
So, I finished this yesterday. I'm still not sure on this one. All the way through reading it I felt as though I was being 'shown' something, that the story was engaging but exclusive and consequently I was always on the outside of it. It may be, I suspect it is the case, that this was deliberate, that this was a storyteller's story rather than the reader's story. There's nothing wrong in that, but I don't particularly like it. I guess I just don't like being 'told' anything :D
A couple of points I would be interested in discussing:
***may be spoilers***
1. Parallels to 1001 nights - I didn't really pick up on this until the end, and I've only partially read the 1001 nights so I doubt I'd pick up on all the allusions anyway. It also feeds into the sense of a story being told, and the mythologising of Saleem's history. In fact the fact that Saleem tells the story to Padma only at night when the factory is closed feeds into this also. Thoughts?
2. Emasculation as a theme - contrasting the physically (and in some cases politically) powerful, successful and single minded women against the men of the story - Aadam Aziz, the man riddled with holes and who, despite all attempts, failed to conquer the Reverend Mother; Nadir Khan who failed to consummate his marriage; Ahmed Sinai who became impotent after the 'freeze'; Zafar the bedwetter; Saleem himself who was 'drained above and below'. And so on. Thoughts (again :D)?
Tristram Shandy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Upon finishing the story I cannot help but to wonder if in fact the more fantastical parts of the story were not in fabrications that Saleem created as a defense mechanism to escape the reality of his life, and perhaps to give greater meaning to the tragedies he has suffered, maybe also his own need to feel as if he were more important and significant than he was. He wanted to feel like he was a part of something greater and perhaps that is a natural enough desire, this is his own way of seeking the greater meaning and purpose of his life by creating this vision of himself as being special.
I wonder what the authors intentions are, if indeed the author means for us to take what Saleem tells us at face value, or if we are intended to see it as an exaggeration and as has been pointed out mythologizing the truth. I do think it is interesting at the end of the story Saleem himself points out to the reader certain inconsistencies in the story, and thus plants into the mind the seeds of doubt of what may have happened, but at the same time he also expects/asks for the story to be taken as truth and swears that it has happened the way he tells it.
He also admits that he lied about the fate of Shiva, but than swears that was the one and only time he has lied, but of course once a person confesses to a lie they are putting the whole of their integrity in doubt. What is the purpose of giving a lie, and than confessing to it? He could have easily concealed from the reader that he lied. It seems by letting us know about his capability and temptation to lie he is giving us leave to question everything else within the story.
I think we are definitely meant to question the narrator--as is the case with almost any first person narrative. Saleem's mental state is definitely questionable, and, unless I'm misremembering, there is no evidence given to his claims aside from his word. At one point I think he even tells the reader that you'll just have to trust and believe him; a clear sign that the reader should do anything but.
After thinking about it, I think I'd lower my rating to a 4 (8.5, really). I was looking at some of the other books I've given a nine, and realized it just doesn't belong in the same category.
Yes towards the end he himself states that there is no proof to anything he says, other than the fact that he apparently really is impotence which he says Padma can verify. But for the rest we just have to trust him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
He also makes a list of inconsistencies within the story and points out things which contradict each other, but simply states that it happened the way it happened because that is how it happened.
Thus he is appealing to the reader to take him completely on trust while even he admits that he is asking us to believe something very difficult to believe of which there is no supporting evidence.
Ashamedly I didn't make the Februray deadline, but I'm still plodding along at page 425.
Previous posters have offered amazing comments and insight that leave me at a loss for words to supplement. Perhaps I can muster up a few thoughts of my own once I finish.
Yes, question the narrator...question that ugly, unreliable narrator as if he were Raskolikov. He is NOT to be trusted.
My favourite character by far was Reverend Mother. She made this book.
Just finished this book. Whew! It took me almost 2 months. A found it quite a chore at times to read, although there's never a dull moment in all its 647 pages. I guess too much happening on the pages is just as tiresome as too little.
I don't know how to rate this. It definitely wasn't average, so I can't give it 3 stars, hmm...
I felt the attempt to link Saleem's life story with the history of the nation was a bit contrived, and the book never reached the heights it seemed to promise.
However, there were many things about it which I enjoyed - its playfulness and vitality and wackiness - OK, what the hell, I'm going to give it 4 stars. :thumbsup: