A rare glimpse into post-revolution nicaragua

Jaguar Smile
Salman Rushdie
January 30th 1987

Jaguar smile is a journal that turned into a book. As Salman Rushdie spends time in Nicaragua he learns about the culture and people more than he has ever. From meeting with the current president of Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega), to talking to villagers about what living in Nicaragua is like, he really finds his way through the country and takes you along with him. In his book he also talks about about current issues Nicaragua has and is facing, like abortion, deforestation, political issues, the government, women's rights, etc. If you are looking for a book that is more like a journal entry than anything this is the book for you.
Although Rushdie makes some good points and provides interesting facts, the disjointed style of writing fails to explain the major points or provide historical context.


Body Paragraph:
When reading The Jaguar Smile I found myself with many unanswered questions about both words and sentences. An example of this is when he included the words “Campesinos, amnesty & mestizos” on page 56 and included no explanation or definition. He continues this confusing writing style on page 26 where he starts to talk about how Nicaragua lost a lot of money on imports. This topic is interesting and informational with good facts and numbers but those random facts and numbers came out of nowhere. I was reading the chapter about “Poets on the day of joy” and suddenly he starts talking about imports. This trend continues on page 39 when he is speaking to Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua. Ortega begins to talk about how horrible President Ronald Reagan is by comparing President Reagan to Hitler, and Rushdie then fails to go in depth about why Daniel hates Regan so much. From a point of view of a person who has never heard of anything about Nicaragua the lack of context within this interview leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Since Salman has been to Nicaragua so many times he writes as though everyone has been there as many times as him. When reading this book I said it were as if his brain was just sprawled out on paper. Based on this evidence it is clear that Salman is unable to fully connect his readers to the larger social issues that he is trying to convey.


Conclusion:
Overall I would give The Jaguar Smile three out of five stars. It has a lot of important information but, it is a bit slow and too much of just the authors brain on paper. I think the author himself could have used the things he was given such the ability to interview many different people about information that many news sources currently don't have and can’t get. He talked to the president of Nicaragua and yet he didn't really go into the issues of Nicaragua with him. He would; talk about certain issues than bring it back to him, or he would talk about him, but in a way that only Nicaraguans would understand.
Although this book is not the best writing style nor does it explain itself all too well, it does have good information that you could only get if you went to Nicaragua. The information he gives and the way he speaks of Nicaragua makes you feel as if you are with him. He goes through Nicaragua like you or I would, and the way he writes make you feel like you are him, like you are in Nicaragua learning and doing all the things he did. Since he visited almost every place in Nicaragua, you were really able to get a good understanding of what Nicaragua is like.

Really beautiful prose. Wonderful insight into the nuance and depth of such a divisive historical event.

Не знаех почти нищо за Никарагуа, затова ми беше интересно да прочета този пътепис.Писан по време на големи реформи, гражданска война той отразява най-вече тези събития.Според мен е ценно че е писан от достатъчно непредубеден автор, лице на Изтока и Запада тъй като представя различни страни,надежди, проблеми и пос��ижения.

This isn't a badly written book by any means. Rushdie is, of course, a great writer, and when he's describing the nonpolitical people and places he visited in Nicaragua it's an interesting book. But what he had to say in this book overall really bugged me. I read it along with Kinzer's book about Nicaragua, "Blood of Brothers", and Kinzer has profoundly different things to say about the Sandinistas than does Rushdie. At one point, he actually mocks and criticizes an unfavorable story about the Sandinistas written by Kinzer for the NY Times. This was particularly obnoxious considering Kinzer had been living in Managua for a really long time, and Rushdie was there for all of about 3 weeks. (Yeah, he wrote a book about a country he'd been in for 3 weeks) In the intro to this book, Rushdie notes that while appearing on a radio show in the US while promoting the book the conservative host (maybe Limbaugh?) asked how long he'd been a "Communist stooge". Sadly, after reading this book, I nearly agree with that radio host.

Rushdie seems so naive in this book. He comes off as a mouth-piece for the Sandinistas. He rightly speaks of the horrible things the American-backed Contras did during the war. But he finds ways to apologize for everything the Sandinistas did. History has very much proven that the Sandinistas weren't great people. They imprisoned, tortured, and also executed their opposition. They stifled dissent and free expression. I don't blame Rushdie for wanting to see a revolution in Central America succeed. I'm very much disgusted by all the Reagan administration did in Nicaragua myself. But give me a break, Rushdie should have been a little more evenhanded here with the criticism. Instead, this book comes off as a long love letter to the Sandinistas.

Prima data după ce am văzut coperta, am crezut ca este o carte cu basme, pentru copii. După ce am citit descrierea am bănuit ca voi găsi o poveste emoționantă trăită in Nicaragua anului 1986.
Când am început sa o citesc, gândul m-a dus la un roman istoric.
Dar se pare ca niciuna dintre variantele de mai sus nu este adevărata, dar nici in totalitate falsa.
Autorul Salman Rushdie pleacă intr-o calatorie in Nicaragua, o țara frământată de revolte, dictatura, sărăcie și speranta intr-o lume mai buna.
Sincer, nu am mai citit nimic despre acest autor, dar dacă toate cărțile lui sunt scrise in aceasta maniera, nu cred ca voi citi prea curând alta opera.
Autorul dorește ca aceasta carte sa fie un jurnal personal in care își exprima, printre altele, preferințele muzicale, talentul artistic și, in același timp, un mini-roman istoric - o combinație fatală din punctul meu de vedere.
Evenimentele nu au o așezare cronologica, fragmentele nu au nicio explicatie pentru aranjarea haotica, decât simplul fapt ca autorul a intrat atunci in posesia lor( de exemplu: in timpul călătoriei spre un oraș), redandu-le exact așa, fără a depune un minim efort pentru a le aranja.
Apoi, discuțiile cu “campesinos” despre literatura au fost redate doar pentru a glorifica țările dezvoltate ale Americii. In niciun caz pentru descrierea culturii locale.
Cât a baut autorul, faptul ca a amestecat romul cu Coca Cola și apoi s-a dus afara sa cânte, cât de credincios sau nu era, ce talent si ce voce avea etc, toate acestea subliniază latura de “jurnal personal” a cărții. Chiar cred ca puteam trai și fără aceste detalii, eventual le puteam citi intr-o opera autobiografica.
Nu mi-a plăcut romanul deloc dar am aflat informații interesante despre țara cu cel mai mare deficit de locuitori din America.

Rushdie's first non-fiction book is based on a three-week visit to Nicaragua in July 1986, as the new democracy struggled to define itself and survive against enemies within and without. A sympathetic portrayal, presnting many of the major and minor players. "For the first time in my life, I realized with surprise, I had come across a government I could support, not faute de mieux, but because I wanted its efforts ... to succeed." The preface, written ten years later, admits that the book "now reads like ... a fairy tale".

A bit unfocused, but dude has fatwa against him so gotta give him some credit

I read this one during a trip I took to Nicaragua, bought it in Leon at buho books.

The book was great. Very much about politics, but also very much about people in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas brought Rushdie out to do some exploring and hopefully exchange some writing on the trip.

He mostly liked the Sandinistas values except for their censure of the press -- "wartime only!" And their more or less casual approach to violence.

The book is really eye opening with regards to American foreign policy. As my time in Nicaragua has confirmed, the vast majority of people hold with the Sandinista socialist values. The Sandinistas fought against the contra which was only kept alive by American funding and support. The Sandinistas ended up losing the war, and an unpopular candidate was elected for a term in the early 90's but it's been all Sandinistas in power since then. Daniel Ortega who was a leader in the Sandinista revolution has been president here for some time and the people approve. Signs in many city say "cristiana, socialista, solidaria" (Christian, socialist, United--each an adjective describing Nicaragua).

One of the most insightful parts of the book was that the Sandinistas gave any peasant who wanted it, a gun. In the middle of a "civil war". The contra was American funded Hondurans. Had nothing to do with Nicaragua.

You can't read this as an American without questioning the government and specifically the Reagan administration. As the last sentence says "We had seen the view from elsewhere."

The book proved to be an interesting snapshot of the post-revolutionary life and troubles in Nicaragua during the Contra Scandal. The situation is presented from an outsider's perspective, albeit from one which can, on account of its own past, sympathize with the struggle of a poorer nation. To my eye, far from being a Communist stooge, as has been alleged by some of his critics in regards to this travelouge, Rushdie judges what he sees from the revolution and its enemies in these three weeks on a basis consistent with what appears to be his principles, priorities and morality.

The freedom of the press is among those, as are the rights of women to their own bodies, and he is, for example, careful to explain his dislike of the La Prensa being closed or censored. But he leaves no doubts that he is very much pro-Sandinista many other aspects, not the least owed to the fact of this being a David vs Goliath like fight, with the US exerting enormous pressure to deny this small country of barely 3 million people its right of self-definition.

Technically, as are all of Rushdie's works, this is a treat to read. The prose flows effortlessly. It is written with a wry wit and shows Rushdie to be a great observer, deep thinker, and also insightful questioner.

I came into this book thinking I would not like it, but I have only felt mixed feelings for "The Moors Last Sigh" because I think it didn't make sense in some parts. Maybe it will make sense later. But this was a nice paired down version of his writing, for those who don't like the magical realism aspect, this only focuses on the realism of the time. It's dated, but it's still entertaining. I think his memoir and this are the perfect gifts for the non Salman Rushdie reader.

Nicaragua, July 1986 - Rushdie's first nonfiction endeavor is my first Rushdie read. I can see why Christopher Hitchens liked him. In some ways, Rushdie reminds me of Hitchens. They're both well read, articulate, and can admire a thing while simultaneously being critical of it. Here, true to form, Rushdie is reverent but not without reservations.

"One didn't have to like people to believe in their right not to be squashed by the United States; but it helped, it certainly helped."

Like the majority of Americans in the first half of the 1980's, I was relatively oblivious to the Reagan administration's policy regarding Nicaragua. Even had I known, I most assuredly would not have lost any sleep over it. Central America was barely on the periphery of my sphere of concern. It was not until the 'Iran-Contra Affair' (1985 - 1987) that I took notice. The sad truth of it is that even then I cared very little one way or the other. In 1985 I still held on to the illusion* that our elected leaders had our best interests at heart, even if they had to sometimes ignore the rule of law to pursue those interests.

*The last shreds of that illusion spontaneously combusted in November, 2016.

If you are unfamiliar with 'Iran-Contra' suffice it to say that the CIA, with the full knowledge of the Reagan Administration, had arguably formed the Contra, a counter-revolutionary resistance force in Nicaragua, and then unarguably continued to fund them after congress, via the Boland Amendment, deemed it illegal and unconstitutional. They did so by selling arms to Khomeini's muslim fundamentalist regime in Iran, and then funneling the proceeds to the Contras.

"In a nearby village, the Contra had recently kidnapped more than two dozen children, many of them girls aged between ten and fourteen, 'for the use of the Contra fighters'... One girl had escaped and got home. The villagers had heard that five other children had escaped, but had been lost in the jungle. That was five weeks ago, and they had to be presumed dead. 'It's so sad going there now,' Mary said. 'The whole village just cries all the time'."

Is Salman Rushdie just a "communist stooge" (as conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has allegedly proclaimed), or is he a purveyor of truth? With over three decades to reflect on Rushdie's visit to Central America, I am seriously leaning toward the latter.