WEB Magazine Sections Interactive Features Regulars Resources RSS
Review COMMENTS
Florence and Fatehpur Sikri, the Mughals and the Medicis, wisdom and bawdiness—the sound and fury of Rushdie's latest novel finally signify nothing


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Published
Daily Mail
Digression
1
May 12, 2008
Prose of Twilight
As an ardent Salman Rushdie fan, it is sad to see him degenerate as a writer (The Rush of Amore, The Dying of the Light, Apr 28). It’s ironic that Rushdie is best known for Satanic Verses, possibly his worst novel. His last three novels—Fury, Ground Beneath Her Feet and Shalimar The Clown—have all had glimpses of his brilliance, but they are pompous and lack originality. He doesn’t connect with the reader—his obsession with his verbal gymnastics becomes an impediment. Rushdie should have a chat with Naipaul.
Anand, Santa Clara, US
2
May 12, 2008
Adios, Mogor Dell’ Amore
It is always sad to see a genius go either wayward, or perform much below his potential. Though it’s still early days, Salman Rushdie looks like another name getting ready to be added to the list. That would be a sad day for Indian writing in English. Not only was he the first Indo-Anglian writer in the post-modern era to be universally appreciated, he also remains its best example. I hope he takes Khushwant Singh’s advice seriously.
Amitabh Thakur, Lucknow

The review of Rushdie’s The Enchantress Of Florence was acutely disappointing. A 360-page work by one of the world’s greatest storytellers has simply been written off in three words—"of no significance"!
P. Shankaran, Waltair
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
1/D-4
Apr 20, 2008
12:01 AM
As an ardent Salman Rushdie fan, it is sad to see the man degenerating as a writer. It is ironic that Rushdie is best known for Satanic Verses, possibly his worst novel. But while his last three novels - Fury, Ground Beneath her feet & Shalimar the Clown - all have glimpses of his brilliance, they lack originality and are too pompous. He doesn't connect with the reader mainly because his verbal gymnastics become impediments.

Rushdie should have a chat with Naipaul.
Anand
Santa Clara, USA
2/D-7
Apr 21, 2008
12:02 AM
Why give any kind of serious books to a antiquated old clown like Khushwant to review?

Dirty jokes are his line.

What a wheezing decayed crackpot he proves his turbaned self to be when he says that he advised that "Satanic Verses" should not be published in India because his "Muslim bretheren" might be offecned, yet -typical of his farting character - still says he did not favour censorship !

India's shabby tenth-rateness is personified in this fartbag who is taken seriously as a leading Indian intellectual !

In most countries people would long ago have kicked him down into the rubbish pit where he belongs.
Parbat Laldeng
Denver, United States
3/D-13
Apr 21, 2008
12:03 AM
Rushdie seems to have a disastrous fellow when it comes to women.

They last two were taller than him. The before last left him despite all his money and glamour. Another - Mariannae Wiggins - also left him. He left his first wife Clarissa and his third, Elizabeth West. That means So now we have four women he has not been able to hold, and another is now having a go and probably making arrangements to pull out already.

Can't be because he offended Mohammed. I don't believe the women cared two hoots about that Arab.

If it was not offending some Arab what is it?

Parbat Laldeng
Denver, United States
4/D-21
Apr 28, 2008
12:04 AM
Al Aswany : The Liberal-Left in Egypt.

By Pankaj Mishra.


http://www.nytimes.com/...any-t.html?ref=magazine

Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
5/D-19
Jun 05, 2008
12:05 AM
The rule is that if you are a 3rd rate writer, you never ever ever evaluate a first rate writer. So I googled this Khushwant Singh, he's written 3 books, you can read bits of it on books.google.com - and, I mean, him evaluating Rushdie is like oh, I don't know, that awful tacky composer who composed the music for Phantom-of-the-Opera, that Weber somebody, it would be like if Weber wrote a review of a beethoven symphony and sniffed that his "pen had run dry". I mean, come on, they're in totally separate categories. Why would this silly twit of a man throw egg all over his own face and write such a silly evaluating kind of review.

I understand if he just wrote it as "this is my gut reaction" or my-personal-reaction-is... and left it at that. But he's trying to *evaluate* Salman Rushdie? I mean, come on... I read an excerpt of this book on the laweekly.com website and it was just fun fun fun. Yes, he's having a lot of fun with all that spice and mysterious perfume kind of stock-trade - the things that other people are so painstakingly earnest about - I mean, the obligatory using-those-spices which is like a ritual in every book. He's having a lot of fun with it and it's fun to read and just goes merrily along. I did not like his portrait of Akbar though. I felt this kind of jolly fat man portrait was cutting Akbar down to caricature.
Arul Francis
Clayton, California
  Order by BACK TO ARTICLE 
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: