The acid-tongued, Yale-educated purveyor of limn places Shalimar the Clown above Rushdie’s ineffectual Fury but below his earlier works (thanks, Rani):
Although the novel is considerably more substantial than his perfunctory 2001 book, “Fury,” it lacks the fecund narrative magic, ebullient language and intimate historical emotion found in “Midnight’s Children” and “The Moor’s Last Sigh.” [Link]
She doesn’t buy the fundamental, near-magical-realism conceit of the protagonist, and without that buy-in the rest of the novel is colored:
Worse, “Shalimar the Clown” is hobbled by Mr. Rushdie’s determination to graft huge political and cultural issues onto a flimsy soap opera plot… But his clumsy suggestion that the title character becomes involved with a group of terrorists inspired by Al Qaeda because he has been jilted by his wife feels farcical in the extreme – unbelievable in terms of the actual story…The main problem with this novel, however, is its title character, Shalimar… who emerges as a thoroughly implausible, cartoonish figure: an ardent lover turned murderous avenger, a clownish performer transformed into a cold-eyed terrorist. Whereas the other characters’ motives are complex and conflicted, Shalimar is depicted in diagrammatic, black-and-white terms. Indeed, he often seems like a reincarnation of the cardboardy Solanka from “Fury”… These are the sort of words spoken by mustache-twirling, snake-eyed villains in old cartoons…
Rushdie is ‘all about the extended, witty aside, the original, snarky insight,’ which she doesn’t seem to dig:
But others are thoroughly gratuitous asides, included, it seems, simply for the sake of emptying out the author’s archive of recorded and imagined images, and they weigh down the story, diminishing its focus and its momentum.
I’m left wondering whether this review is more a criticism of the genre and Rushdie’s fundamental style than the individual tome. We’ll know soon — the book is officially out tomorrow, though you may have nabbed a copy this weekend.
Previous posts: one, two, three, four, five, six
Okay, whatever Kakatuni. I guess shalimar’s limn was too limited. If this review is a repeat of Vernon God Little episode, shalimar clown will win the booker. Anyways, pre-ordered book from amazon, hope SM gets the 2 cent cut.
We’ll know soon — the book is out tomorrow.
What are you talking about? I have my copy in my hand??
/Saheli wonders if she asked for the wrong book. . .
Nice work 😉 Official launch was the 6th, last I checked.
Come back to Berkeley, Manish. Cody’s had it yesterday, and I’m told there wasn’t even a line. 😀
Manish- I wonder about this too – why can’t reviewers stick to the one book they are supposed to be reviewing?
Now that is old Rushdie nerdy look!
i’ve read some of kakatuni’s reviews of books with scientific material, and she’s an idiot.
Amit Chaudhuri has a more sympathetic review in Outlook (can’t find the link icon)
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050912&fname=Books&sid=1&pn=2
Tilo, the (original) function, I think, of the book review was to elucidate why a particular tome is (ir)relevent both in the realm of literature as well as in the larger world. Hence, good reviewers must be able to talk about other books – both the writer’s previous books and other books being published at the time – for the review to be at all critical.
As for Kakutani… People don’t read NYTBR to decide what book to read – at least I hope they don’t; people read NYTBR, and Kakutani in particular, to know what books are being talked about.
I thought I’d let someone else say it, but I can’t take it anymore. You all realize that Kakutani is really a middle aged white guy in drag, yes?
Saheli,
: ))
limn-fetish? Check. McSweeneys? Check.
I see both your references, and raise you a token asian.
Good review from USA today by Deirdre Donahue
Be fair Manish – she’s neither trashing the genre nor the author. The paragraph you didn’t cite mentions his books before Fury approvingly. Her point is that this book, while better than Fury, is not up to Rushdie’s previous standard.
Read between the lines, Ennis 😉
I’d rather read what’s in them:
How you get from that to “a criticism of the genre and RushdieÂ’s fundamental style” is beyond me …
Um, the other quotes you ignored, the ones in the post. The complaints she has are the very emblems of Rushdie’s style and, to some extent, the magical realism genre. Giant, universal allegories, check. Fantastical characters, check. Memorable villains, check. Extended witty asides, check.
Her problem isn’t with the techniques, it’s with their effectiveness. She finds the villain this time cartoonish, not memorable. She finds the asides gratuitous , not witty.
Her problem is with the effectiveness of the implementation this time around, not with the use of allegory altogether.
Couldn’t you have written a similar review of Fury saying that you wish he had been as effective in the past?
That’s not at all clear to me. This smells like a reviewer who doesn’t grok the author or the genre– it’s exactly that kind of review. I’d have to check Kakutani’s older reviews of either Rushdie or the genre.
Kakutani dissed The Ground Beneath Her Feet, a terribly romantic book, a book which I loved. She seems to like early Rushdie but despises his late period, the version which makes pop allusions to Elvis and Klingons. She has no problem with magical realism in theory, but dislikes the grand allegory and late Rushdie’s signature style. The bolded passage below could just as easily describe Shalimar as Ground.
Rushdie collaborated with Bono on a song based on Ground– and ironically, many also complain about late U2 😉
Manish, you “loved” The Ground Beneath Her Feet? Oy, I couldn’t get past page 90. However, I’d be willing to take another stab at it if you can convince me why you liked it. I generally agree with your literary likes/dislikes.
With that said, I request a review of Shalimar from Manish. Probably the only review I can trust; it seems most of these reviewers are just creaming at the possibility to take shots at Rushdie.
Mirror worlds, an intense Laila Majnu-style romance, his goddess-women again, an off-kilter, desi Elvis in an alternate universe, offshore pirate radio, an obsession with pop fame that was new in the Rushdie oeuvre (and, like Bono, a bit overblown). It’s rich and painfully romantic. I do remember it started off slowly, if that helps.
For that matter, I gave up on Satanic Verses many years ago, it was too dense for the teenage me. Re-reading it, I loved it.
I found a single copy tucked way in the back under Rushdie in the fiction shelves the night before the launch, thanks to Saheli’s tip. ‘Twas a delicious discovery 🙂 I’m not sure whether to credit it to a soft launch, a sympathetic, literate BN worker, or just lazy restocking. Maybe Zadie’s book will be stocked next Saturday instead of Tuesday, hush hush.
As for a review, absolutely (and your faith is terrifying 🙂 ), but not in the next few days. I read in bits and pieces these days on the subway, so it takes a couple of weeks per book, and I like to savor.
Post-martyrdom he makes himself a juicy target. He’s Agassi in his arrogant, blond highlight days. But he usually brings the goods.
apologies if this was mentioned in the thread or posts, but don’t have time to read all of them these days.
The one review that made me want to read the book (and generally, excerpts from Rushdie books make me want to run far, far away – which is my hang-up and not a comment on their quality) was in the New York Sun. ARts and letters daily has linked it. I really, really like the passage high-lighted.