Community Reviews

Rating(4.1 / 5.0, 100 votes)
5 stars
36(36%)
4 stars
33(33%)
3 stars
31(31%)
2 stars
0(0%)
1 stars
0(0%)
100 reviews
April 17,2025
... Show More
Esta é a primeira obra que leio do autor. Gostei bastante da escrita e da estrutura da narrativa. Gostei de "passear" por Caxemira e do contexto socio-politico que foi explicado ao leitor. Também gostei das várias menções aos rituais e deuseus hindus que é uma religião que me fascina.
Não gostei do final.
April 17,2025
... Show More
"Клоун Шалімар" - це якісний приклад художньої прози, яка допомагає дізнатись та спробувати зрозуміти складну ситуацію та розклад міжнародних сил в далеких від нас країнах. Це книга про особисту війну на тлі одного з найбільш кривавих конфліктів в Кашмірі. Конфлікт, який росте, ускладнюється, втягує все більше учасників, "підтягує" релігію та традиції, пожирає своїх "героїв" та є глибокою травмою вже декількох поколінь кашмірців. Головними героями цього роману є почуття та помилки, (не)каяття та (не)прощення, жага помсти та справедливості, гідність та жертовність. Війни легко почати, але дуже важко закінчити, і ненависть передати у спадок в рази легше, ніж передати любов та повагу. І поки що людство не надто добре вчиться на власних помилках.
Хороша динамічна книга з яскравими персонажами, широкою географією та складними подіями довгого XX століття. Рекомендую!
April 17,2025
... Show More
What starts as a story of two villages, one Hindu and one Muslim, of two young people in love, one Hindu and one Muslim, gradually transforms into the depiction of the territorial conflict between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region. This novel is very complex and revolves around many topics: religion, family, clash between tradition and modern lifestyle, tolerance turning into extremism and fundamentalist violence, consequences and effects of blind ambition and more. Yet the storyline never gets confused or too complicated to follow. And although I find it disturbing how Rushdie narrates the scenes of brutal violance and cruelty, at the same time it fascinates me how such a dark and violant book can feel almost magical and dreamlike.


’Kill one, scare ten. Kill one, scare ten’. Hindu community houses, temples, private homes and whole neighborhoods were being destroyed. ‘Kill one, scare ten’, the Muslim mobs chanted, and ten were indeed, scared. More than ten. 350 000 pandits, almost entire pandit population of Kashmir, fled from their homes and headed south to the refugee camps where they would rot, like bitter fallen apples, like the unloved, undead dead they had become. <…> There were 600 000 Indian troops in Kashmir but the pogrom of the pandits was not prevented, why was that. Three and a half lakhs of human beings arrived in Jammu as displaced persons and for many months the government did not provide shelters of relief or even register their names, why was that. When the government finally built camps it only allowed for 6000 families to remain in the state, dispersing the others around the country, where they would be invisible and impotent, why was that. The camps at Purkhoo, Muthi, Mishriwallah, Nagrota were built on the banks and beds of nullahas, dry seasonal waterways, and when the water came the camps were flooded, why was that. The ministers of the government made speeches about ethnic cleansing but the civil servants wrote one another memos saying that the pandits were simply internal migrants whose displacement had been self-imposed, why was that. The tents provided for the refugees to live in where often uninspected and leaking and the monsoon rains came through, why was that. When the one-room tenements called ORTs were built to replace the tents they too leaked profusely, why was that. There was one bathroom per three hundred persons in many camps why was that and the medical dispensaries lacked basic first-aid materials why was that and thousands of the displaced died because of the inadequate food and shelter why was that maybe five thousand deaths because of intense heat and humidity because of snake bites and gastroenteritis and dengue fever and stress diabetes and kidney ailments and tuberculosis and psychoneurosis and there was not a single health survey conducted by the government why was that and the Pandits of Kashmir were left to rot in their slum camps, to rot while the army and the insurgency fought over the bloodied and broken valley, to dream of return, to die while dreaming of return, to die after the dream of return died so that they could not even die dreaming of it, why was that why was that why was that why was that why was that.

What happend that day in Pachigam need not be set down here in full detail, because brutality is brutality and excess is excess and that’s all there is to it. There are things that must be looked at indirectly because they would blind you if you looked them in the face, like the fire of the sun. So, to repeat: there was no Pachigam anymore. Pachigam was destroyed. Imagine it for yourself.


---
Marriage is now what, a car rental. Thank you for using our services, we’ll pick you up, when you’re done with the vehicle we’ll take you home again. Get all insurance you can get up front, loss damage waiver, whatever, and the risk is nothing. You crash the car, you walk away without nothing to pay. Go for it, baby, who you gonna save it for? They don’t make no glass slippers no more. They already closed the factory. They don’t make no princes neither. They shot the Romanovs in a cellar and Anastasia too is dead.
April 17,2025
... Show More
Dincolo de povestea de dragoste și ură, cel mai mult am apreciat că, deși este un roman de ficțiune, cartea explică pe înțelesul unui cititor obișnuit originea și cauzele nici până azi rezolvatului conflict din Cașmir, nașterea diverselor grupări teroriste cu fundament religios finanțate și înarmate de Pakistan cu ajutorul puterilor angrenate în Războiul Rece, cum au fost eliminați treptat naționaliștii laici, abuzurile și manipulările trupelor indiene, apariția taberelor de antrenament pentru atentatori sinucigași, precum și crimele și violențele ce au decurs din toate acestea.
Ultimul capitol mi s-a părut comercial, grăbit, cinematografic și cumva nepotrivit cu restul cărții.
April 17,2025
... Show More
В начале иногда хочется отложить книгу, как какой-то дешевый роман. Потом втягиваешься — и уже плывешь по волнам этой запутанной истории. А потом, к сожалению для меня как читателя, наступает финал — и последние страницы разочаровывают, как будто автору просто тоже захотелось избавиться от книги.
April 17,2025
... Show More
Rushdie at what he excels: sprawling, intertwining narratives that do not shy away from melodrama and fanciful hyperbole, a battery of cinematographic techniques put to good use and knotty plot structures, a gallery of over the top characters that go through the most sensational of situations and transformations, and a dazzling – if occasionally wearisome – command of lavish literary language. Couldn’t shake the feeling that some bits were extraneous, and thus detrimental to the novel’s rhythm, and that the ending felt a bit cheap, with its sudden shift toward pulp and facile Hollywoodian resolutions, but the novel’s rich and exciting blend of history, myth and politics is so ambitious that one may peacefully turn a blind eye to some of its excesses.
April 17,2025
... Show More
a smart young lady trying to find herself in California. the assassination of her father - America's counterterrorism chief. a portrait of Kashmir before all the ugliness and horror. the life of a man: lawyer, Jew, printer, resistance fighter, diplomat, husband, lover, father. a portrait of Kashmir - the ugliness, the horror. the life of a man: acrobat, actor, husband, freedom fighter, terrorist, chauffeur, assassin. a courtroom drama. a tale of a guy who really knows how to handle himself in prison. a troubled young lady finding love and thirsting for revenge. a miniature epic. a work that is sublime and transcendent. a frustrating book. a masterpiece!

the first section of the novel follows the life of young urban sophisticate India, a documentarian and the daughter of a famous father. right off the bat, i had issues. Rushdie's voice is justly famous for its idiosyncracy. he is a "witty" writer. his voice is polished, erudite, disarmingly casual, sometimes dry, sometimes broad, intellectual, political, personal. Shalimar is full of sharp, wry characterization that is delivered in prose that is complicated, flowing, detailed in long sentences and even longer paragraphs, with much use of striking bits of offbeat imagery. the dialogue can be realistic but just as often feels archly stylized. i couldn't help but think that many characters spoke like Rushdie himself must speak. all of this became rather off-putting, as if Rushdie was oh such a clever man - like that oh so clever gent who goes on and on at a cocktail party, entranced with being the center of attention while never noticing how genuinely pretentious and condescending he sounds (i'll admit here that that dreary kind of cocktail party person is frequently... myself. sigh). this is not to say that the first section wasn't often funny. it was. particularly in Rushdie's depiction of the all-american boy-next-door type, and that type's glorified kind of anonymity. but you can still really want to smack a funny person upside the head if their humor comes wrapped in up-his-own-ass cleverness. at least i did. and all that said, the last part of the section - an assassination and a daughter's removal from reality: brilliant. just brilliant.

the second section takes us into the past, to a Kashmiri village named Pachigam. my God, this section was beautiful! Rushdie's prose sings. the story of this village, its wonderful characters, two young people in love, the myths and legends, the magic, the rivalries, the coming of military types from India and revolutionary types from Pakistan, the stories within stories, the feeling of time moving inexorably forward, the troubling hints of bad times on the horizon, the grand passions, the small things, the humanity, the color and light and life and all the glorious details of a world that is no more... marvelous! just marvelous. i wanted to live in this world. here is also where it becomes absolutely clear how much Rushdie respects the strength of women and the power of art (art in cooking, acting, theatre; art as a tradition and a lifestyle). there is a dreamy kind of wish fulfillment happening in this section. things are not idealized and the narrative is not a sentimental one and characters are not one-dimensional - and yet this section is so full of people surviving in hard times, people living their lives to the fullest, people standing up for each other and being brave and being honest and being utterly themselves - i read this novella-sized section in a state of bliss. it is beauty on the page. i could read the story of this village over and again. swoon!

the third section is the story of Max Ophuls. his name is that of a brilliant, classic director. he has a sinister, cringing assistant named Ed(gar) Wood(s). hey that's the name of another brilliant, classic director, a low-rent one, one who exists on the exact opposite part of the film spectrum as Ophuls. is this another example of Rushdie being clever for the sake of cleverness? perhaps. it doesn't matter. this section is also fantastic. Rushdie knows how to write thrilling wartime drama. Rushdie knows how to write tales of escape and derring-do and brave flights across troubled waters. is there anything the man can't write? this section starts in World War 2-era France, the life before the war, the resistance during, the politics and the spies and the lives lived in hiding. it gives you a brave heroine as well - complicated, butch, tender, merciless, independent, an incredibly sympathetic lady, and - much later - a stone-cold bitch. then Rushdie takes you out of France, into India, and into a disturbing affair. the fall of a Kashmiri villlager turned mistress. Rushdie writes of great events but keeps the personal front and center. he keeps things intimate and he keeps his characters real. Rushdie knows how to write.

some serious spoilers follow!

the fourth section returns to the Kashmiri village of Pachigam and is a tale of horror, why is that. it details the ruthlessness of religious fundamentalism and the madness of mindless militarism and the bloodthirstiness that occurs when the two meet, why is that. it shows us traditions dying, traditions being slaughtered, small things ground under the boots of smaller minds, villages burning and women raped and people tortured and beloved characters being hurt and broken and tormented and demeaned and killed, why is that. the authorial voice remains stylized and that should lead to some distance between story and reader but if anything the wryness and the stylization and the continued use of magic make the brutality even more stark and horrible, why is that. humans are fucking miserable bugs to treat each other this way and yet that's how it is and people die and people don't care and people live to rationalize their disgusting lack of humanity and people die who only want to live and people die and people die and people die, why is that. i hate people, why is that. i read this in an airport terminal while my flight was delayed for hours and it was hard not to cry and so i took many smoke breaks to try and let the heaviness lift a little and i kept returning to the book and i started to feel a strange feeling of being altered, of looking at things from very far away, of wanting to be far away, and yeah i did start crying, why is that. i'm writing this now and for some reason the tears are flowing again, why is that. why the fuck are people so fucking cruel and why is history a record of cruelty and why should humans be alive anyway, why do they do the things they do, i will never understand that, just thinking of what humans do to each other fills me with such sadness and rage and confusing feelings that i barely understand, why is that. people are so fucked up, why is that why is that why is that why is that.

the fifth section returns us to modern day California. tale of a troubled young woman trying to be strong. tale of a man so hollowed out by his lack of love that he is nothing but a terrible shell with a terrible purpose. tale of some courtroom shenanigans. tale of a prison break. tale of a tale of a tale of a tale. things come together; things come apart. Kashmir is more than Kashmir - it is a living symbol for so many things. there is always room for love, even in the middle of vengeance. sometimes the lack of love is replaced by something else. sometimes hate is like love. sometimes things just can't be understood or explained. Rushdie tries, he really does, he tries brilliantly. his sentimental humanism is obvious in the very motivation of Shalimar the clown, who is not your typical terrorist. i don't mind the sentimental humanism; sometimes i crave it. Rushdie is a humanist who has not let the fatwa destroy his sense of decency or fairness, his need to see a person's tale from all angles, to see the why and the how of humans turning into monsters. Rushdie understands both the futility and the necessity of revenge, different forms of revenge. Shalimar the Clown ends on an exciting note. Shalimar the Clown ends on a mysterious note. what will happen next? is there any hope? perhaps i am more of a pessimist than Rushdie because he clearly has hope while i think of humans and often feel hopeless. Humans Off Earth Now! but maybe not. there's hope yet, right? it is a strange and terrible and wonderful feeling to read a book that gives and then takes away and then gives back - just a little - a kind of faith in humanity. hey look the book is bigger on the inside than the little thing you are holding in your hands.
April 17,2025
... Show More
Kashmir is the head wound inflicted on India as a parting shot by the Britishers while leaving. Over the period following Independence, it festered and turned septic - ultimately becoming gangrenous.

The tale of Kashmir had never been told in its entirety; maybe because it so many-layered, contains so many contradictory points of view, and is so emotionally loaded that nobody could be trusted to give a truthful picture. But where history fails, mythology has to take over. And artists and writers being the myth-makers of today (as Joseph Campbell has said), who better than Salman Rushdie, the "Shah of Blah", to tell the tale?

All myth is metaphor. So it is here: Shalimar the Clown, his wife Bhoomi (called Boonyi) Kaul, her lover Maximillian Ophuls, their daughter Kashmira/ India - characters who are flesh-and-blood people, shameless pasteboard caricatures, and mythical beings spanning time and space at the same time. Because the creation of a new iconography is important, to replace those old images which have become entrenched in our collective psyche and which have lost their power.
New images urgently needed to be made. Images for a godless world. Until the language of irreligion caught up with the holy stuff, until there was sufficient poetry and iconography of godlessness, these sainted echoes would never fade, would retain their problematic power...
***

We Indians have grown upon the story that Kashmir has always been an integral part of India. The truth is much more nuanced. At the time of Indian independence and the partition of the country, Kashmir opted for independence. However, a few months after the British left, mercenaries from Pakistan attacked: and the fledgling nation was forced to come to India for support. Subsequently, the Indian army took up the protection of Kashmir, provisionally accessing it to India, with the understanding the question of independence shall be taken up at a future date through a referendum (something which never happened). As time went by, Kashmiri people began to rebel against the Indian army presence which they increasingly began to view as foreign occupation: and India, in the meantime, began to see the people who wanted independence as subversives.
Elasticnagar was unpopular, the colonel knew that, but unpopularity was illegal. The legal position was that the Indian military presence in Kashmir had the full support of the population, and to say otherwise was to break the law. To break the law was to be a criminal and criminals were not to be tolerated and it was right to come down on them heavily with the full panoply of the law and with hobnailed boots and lathi sticks as well. The key to understanding this position was the word integral and its associated concepts. Elasticnagar was integral to the Indian effort and the Indian effort was to preserve the integrity of the nation. Integrity was a quality to be honoured and an attack on the integrity of the nation was an attack on its honour and was not to be tolerated. Therefore Elasticnagar was to be honoured and all other attitudes were dishonourable and consequendy illegal. Kashmir was an integral part of India. An integer was a whole and India was an integer and fractions were illegal. Fractions caused fractures in the integer and were thus not integral. Not to accept this was to lack integrity and implicitly or explicitly to question the unquestionable integrity of those who did accept it. Not to accept this was latently or patently to favour disintegration. This was subversive. Subversion leading to disintegration was not to be tolerated and it was right to come down on it heavily whether it was of the overt or covert kind. The legally compulsory and enforceable popularity of Elasticnagar was thus a matter of integrity, pure and simple, even if the truth was that Elasticnagar was unpopular. When the truth and integrity conflicted it was integrity that had to be given precedence. Not even the truth could be permitted to dishonour the nation. Therefore Elasticnagar was popular even though it was not popular. It was a simple enough matter to understand.
Initially, the fight was for "Kashmiriyat": a free country independent of both India and Pakistan, with its unique culture.
In those days before the crazies got into the act the liberation front was reasonably popular and azadi was the universal cry. Freedom! A tiny valley of no more than five million souls, landlocked, preindustrial, resource rich but cash poor, perched thousands of feet up in the mountains like a tasty green sweetmeat caught in a giant's teeth, wanted to be free. Its inhabitants had come to the conclusion that they didn't much like India and didn't care for the sound of Pakistan. So: freedom! Freedom to be meat-eating Brahmins or saint-worshipping Muslims, to make pilgrimages to the ice-lingam high in the unmelting snows or to bow down before the prophet's hair in a lakeside mosque, to listen to the santoor and drink salty tea, to dream of Alexander's army and to choose never to see an army again, to make honey and carve walnut into animal and boar shapes and to watch the mountains push their way, inch by inch, century by century, further up into the sky. Freedom to choose folly over greatness but to be nobody's fools. Azadi! Paradise wanted to be free.
Soon, however, the conflict took on religious undertones. The Kashmiri Pandits who wanted to integrate with India were seen as patriots and those who wanted independence were seen as Muslim subversives. And when Pakistan got into the act, and the twins born of the bloody partition went to war over a piece of frozen land, the "Kashmir problem" was born.
War, whose highest purpose was the creation of clarity where none existed, the noble clarity of victory and defeat, had solved nothing. There had been little glory and much wasteful dying. Neither side had made good its claim to this land, or gained more than the tiniest patches of territory. The coming of peace left things in worse shape than they had been before the twenty-five days of battle. This was peace with more hatred, peace with greater embitterment, peace with deeper mutual contempt. For Colonel Kachhwaha, however, there was no peace, because the war raged on interminably in his memory, every moment of it replaying itself at every moment of every day, the livid green dampness of the trenches, the choking golf ball of fear in the throat, the shell bursts like lethal palm fronds in the sky, the sour grimaces of passing bullets, the iridescence of wounds and mutilations, the incandescence of death. Back in Elasticnagar, he immured himself in his quarters and pulled down the blinds and still the war would not cease, the intense slow motion of hand-to-hand combat in which the glassy fragility of his own pathetic, odorous life might be shattered at any moment by this bayonet that knife this grenade that screaming black-greased face, where this twist of the ankle that swivel of the hip this duck of the head that jab of the arm could summon up the darkness welling out of the cracks in the jagged earth, the darkness licking at the bodies of the soldiers, licking away their strength their legs their hope their legs their dissolving colourless legs. He had to sit in this darkness, his own soft darkness, so that other darkness, the hard darkness, would not come. To sit in soft darkness and forever be at war.
Yes, the war, the forever war... the "freedom fighters" became "Pakistani terrorists", irrespective of whether they were from India or Pakistan. The conflict became a dirty battle, pitching brother against brother. And the army, assigned special powers, unsurprisingly became the principal oppressor.
The political echelon's decision to declare Kashmir a “disturbed area" was also greatly appreciated. In a disturbed area, search warrants were not required, arrest waffants ditto, and shoot to kill treatment of suspects was acceptable. Suspects who remained alive could be arrested and detained for two years, during which period it would not be necessary to charge them or to set a date for their trial. For more dangerous suspects the political echelon permitted more severe responses. Persons who committed the ultimate crime of challenging the territorial integrity of India or in the opinion of the armed forces attempted to disrupt same could be jailed for five years. Interrogation of such suspects would take place behind closed doors and confessions extracted by force during these secret interrogations would be admissible as evidence provided the interrogating officer had reason to believe the statement was being made voluntarily. Confessions made after the suspect was bearen or hung by the feet, or after he had experienced electricity or the crushing of his hands or feet, would be considered as being voluntary. The burden of proof would be shifted and it would be for these persons to prove the falsehood of the automatic presumption of guilt. If they failed so to do the death penalty could be applied.
The impact on the Brahmin Pandits was also devastating. Forced to flee the valley under fear of genocide, they got short shrift at the hands of the Indian government too. Like the Palestinian refugees, they struggle to this day, useful only as pawns in a political battle between the Right and the Left.
There were six hundred thousand Indian troops in Kashmir but the pogrom of the pandits was not prevented, why was that. Three and a half lakhs of human beings arrived in Jammu as displaced persons and for many months the government did not provide shelters or relief or even register their names, why was that. When the government finally built camps it only allowed for six thousand families to remain in the state, dispersing the others around the country where they would be invisible and impotent, why was that. The camps at Purkhoo, Muthi, Mishriwallah, Nagrota were built on the banks and beds of nullahas, dry seasonal waterways, and when the water came the camps were flooded, why was that. The ministers of the government made speeches about ethnic cleansing but the civil servants wrote one another memos saying that the pandits were simply internal migrants whose displacement had been self-imposed, why was that. The tents provided for the refugees to live in were often uninspected and leaking and the monsoon rains came through, why was that. When the one-room tenements called ORTs were built to replace the tents they too leaked profusely, why was that. There was one bathroom per three hundred persons in many camps why was that and the medical dispensaries lacked basic first-aid materials why was that and thousands of the displaced died because of inadequate food and shelter why was that maybe five thousand deaths because of intense heat and humidity because of snake bites and gastroenteritis and dengue fever and stress diabetes and kidney ailments and tuberculosis and psychoneurosis and there was not a single health survey conducted by the government why was that and the pandits of Kashmir were left to rot in their slum camps, to rot while the army and the insurgency fought over the bloodied and broken valley, to dream of return, to die while dreaming of return, to die after the dream of return died so that they could not even die dreaming of it, why was that why was that why was that why was that why was that.
***

Now did I give the impression that this book is a political tirade? If so, I apologise. It is deeply political - at the same time, it is a tale of personal tragedy.

The tragedy of Boonyi Kaul, the Pandit girl married to a Muslim man, and who wanted to escape the humdrum life of the valley. That of Max Ophuls, her French-American Jewish lover, who is a counter-terrorism warrior, and who is battling demons of his own. That of her daughter Kashmira, renamed India, rudderless in the last decades of the last century. And ultimately, the tragedy of her cuckolded husband, tightrope-walker-cum-entertainer-turned terrorist, Noman Noman, better known as "Shalimar the Clown".

Because in the case of Kashmir, you see, the personal is always political.
In short, she could not get her cuckolded husband out of her mind, and because it was impossible to talk to her American lover about anything important she spoke heatedly of "Kashmir" instead. Whenever she said "Kashmir" she secretly meant her husband, and this ruse allowed to declare her love for the man she had betrayed to the man with whom she had committed the act of treason. More and more often her love for this encoded "Kashmir", arousing no suspicion, even when her pronouns occasionally slipped, so that she referred to his mountains, his valleys, his gardens, his flowing streams, his flowers, his stags, his fish. Her American lover was obviously too stupid to crack the code, and attributed the pronoun slippage to her incomplete command of the language. However he, the ambassador, took careful note of her passion, and was plainly moved when she was at her angriest, when she castigated "Kashmir" for his cowardice, for his passivity in the face of crimes committed against him. "These crimes," he asked, reclining on her pillows, caressing her naked back, kissing her exposed hip, pinching her nipple, "these would be actions of the Indian armed forces you're talking about?" At that moment she decided that the term "Indian armed forces" would secretly refer to the ambassador himself, she would use the Indian presence in the valley as a surrogate for the American occupation of her body, so, "Yes, that's it," she cried, "the Indian armed forces, raping and pillaging. How can you not know it? How can you not comprehend the humiliation of it, the shame of having your boots march all over my private fields?" Again, those telltale slips of the songue. Your boots, my fields. Again, distracted by her inflamed beauty, he paid no attention to the errors. "Yes, dearest," he said in a muffled voice from between her thighs, "I believe I do begin to understand, but would it be possible to table the subject for the moment?"
Five glorious stars!
April 17,2025
... Show More
Rather dazzling in a depressive manner. 
We are no longer protagonists, only agonists.

Rushdie does wonderful lush prose. Rather sharp, too, in his critiques of peoples and events. But his characterization is superb. In each of the main characters you find things to admire and recoil in disgust. He brings a male sensibility and gaze to his writing, that's not to say that it's performative masculinity, but rather that you would never mistake his gender.

You have an idyllic place with Muslims living side by side with Hindus. Two star-crossed lovers grab that golden ring, and it spirals into a tapestry of betrayals and violence. Fathers and mothers, daughters and sons, and legacy. The legacy of our families, our ideologies, our culture, our lands, and how heavy that burden of debt is on each of us and affecting our decisions. 
The explosion--the gigantic excitement of the moment of power, followed almost immediately by a violent involuntary physical reaction, a parallel explosion of vomit--taught him two lessons he never forgot: that terrorism was thrilling, and that, no matter now profoundly justified its cause, he personally could not get over the moral hurdles required to perform such acts on a regular basis. 

I suppose, in the simplest terms, this is just a story about love gone bad. 

I came across a review of this book by Christopher Hitchens in a previous read this year and added it to my reading list. Hitchens' comment about if nuclear war were to come about it would happen between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. And then the events in Kashmir started, and I requested it from my library. 

This was not a quick read for me because of the real world implications, and also that the format outlines four different lives: Shalimar, Boonyi, Max, and India/Kashmira. The sections made natural breaks. I walk away from this story with a better understanding of how things kept fracturing until we reach the point where we are now. 
The fall of Strasbourg was a chapter in its back-and-forth frontier history. The fall of Paris was Paris's fault. 

"Be so good," he said at the conclusion of an eloquent tirade, "as to cease to cast yourself in fictions. Pinch yourself, or slap yourself across the face if that's what it takes, but understand, please, that you are nonfictional, and this is real life."
April 17,2025
... Show More
The publishing community has long believed that once authors achieve best seller status and their names become recognizable, subsequent works from these so fortunately knighted are bankable safe bets. Oh, how easily sprinting giants stumble when they lose sight of the path to reader bliss and focus, instead, on the desires of their marketing departments.

Rushdie’s latest work, Shalimar the Clown, is a clear example of what ails the novel today. Notwithstanding my disdain for page long sentences and words such as “thence” prancing themselves pedantically across the pages of a twenty-first century novel, Shalimar the Clown, is a cliché story of revenge – masterfully told. Though it nobly gives the reader a glimpse of the beautiful, culturally rich Kashmiri existence, it also transforms what should be a fun-filled literary jaunt into a laborious epic with the turn of each increasingly heavy page. This is unfortunate and causes one to wonder if a younger, fresher author would have experienced this much difficulty holding the attention of today’s young, sophisticated, savvy reader who toggles between films in the genus of Sin City and the soft compelling buttons of their Sony PlayStations before cracking the binding of a new novel.

There is no question as to Rushdie’s talent; only his relevance in a high-tech, high speed, high consumption, monster truck driving American culture. Is he able to produce works that tap the pulse of America’s young? Perhaps. However, Shalimar the Clown doesn’t suggest that. If fiction is truly dying, it is at the hands of the publishing community who would rather stifle a genre to preserve their marketing models before re-working these models to allow new talent. It’s time to throw open the windows and allow the fresh, vibrant air in.

– © Joel Glenn, Book Critic –The NYLS Book Review, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

April 17,2025
... Show More
Точно на страница 300 (от 600) си мислех: страниците наистина изтичат с лекота, но не изпитвам онази омагьосваща сила от „Среднощни деца“ или „Срам“ – които дори ми бяха по-трудни, но наистина по-омайващи… Дотук историята с девойката Индия и после с Буни ми изглеждаше леко куха, липсваше ми символичността на „магическия реализъм“, реалността и сладникавостта ми идваха в повече. (По-късно магическите елементи възприех по-скоро като чиста психология или „работа“ на (под)съзнанието, т.е. съвсем естествено ги приех, не като някакви самоцелни фантасмагории).

И тук когато действието се пренасяше извън Индия сякаш силата отслабваше (както в „Земята под нейните нозе“). В Индия (особено в Кашмир) силата беше „натурална“, в Европа и Америка нещо не вървеше. Първата глава за Макс (особено по време на Втората световна война в Европа) беше сякаш в различен стил, по-телеграфен, все едно съм свикнала да виждам картини на автора в течение „сюрреализъм“ и изведнъж виждам картина примерно в „кубизъм“.

Но като стигнах до стр. 327 всичко се преобърна! Появи се „моят Рушди“ с мощната сила… Сякаш изведнъж проби до най-дълбокото, достигна до сложността на човешката нравственост и ситуацията стана болезнено неразрешима – кое е правилно, кое е човешко, опрощение или спазване на клетва, състрадание или защита на морал и достойнство (разбира силно ме развълнува проявата на сърдечна доброта, особено когато тя надделяваше над спазването на традициите).

Детайлно беше проследено зараждането на тероризма – на индивидуално ниво, в душицата на всеки отделен недоволен или безумен „боец“ и как в такива случаи винаги има кой да организира тези душици, с охота да ги погълне и разпали. Жалко за всяка раздробена частичка на Индия, където всеки е убеден, че е прав (и международните "сили"). А Кашмир привлича още повече симпатии може би заради райската си красота… преди унищожението отвън и отвътре. Красота имаше в природата, бита и поминъка, в семейните и междусъседските отношения, в умереността на спазването на традициите – не сляпо, а разумно, в дух на диалог, човечност (креативност дори!). Но това беше някога...

При всяка книга на Рушди се питам - има ли нещо, което този човек да не знае – периоди от историята, митологии, религии, геополитика, особености на нации, градове... Но това не са просто знания, всичко е пречупено през призмата на хуманизма на автора. Видях и някои аспекти, които не бях срещала в другите му романи – представени пак с огромна любов – изкуството на пътуващите циркови артисти, кулинарното изкуство (банкетът на най-малко 36 ястия), занаятите; а „любовното изкуство“ си го знаем, след като Кама Сутра е от Индия...

Интересно, че и тук (примерно като в „Земята под нейните нозе“) сякаш има една „елементарна“ основа. Направо да кажа типична индийска драма… Обаче така наслагва и споява пластовете Рушди, че превръща творението си от нещо любовно-индийско в нещо мащабно и гениално. Най-интересното е, че всяка негова книга е като приказка, а уж е за „най-сериозните неща на света“…

Това е първият автор, на който станах fan тук, досега не съм чувствала подтик да го направя с друг. И какво ли не изчетох покрай тази книга (и както винаги като чета книги на Рушди) – личния сайт на писателя, интервюта с него, ревюта за книгите му тук, wiki за Кашмир, за Пакистан, за Индия и т.н...

Често се възхищавам на таланта на Салман Рушди, но не смея да препоръчвам романите му. Трябва човек да е сигурен, че обича Салман, за да продължи да чете книгите му! Или… в неизбежните части/изречения, когато го ненавижда, това да е с любов! ;)
 1 2 3 4 5 下一页 尾页
Leave a Review
You must be logged in to rate and post a review. Register an account to get started.