Rushdie for Booker

shalimar the clown

Shalimar The Clown is releasing only by September 6th of this year. But Rushdie is already on the roll. The 2005 Booker prize longlist, which was announced a couple of days back, has Salman Rushdie‘s Shalimar the Clown listed as one of the contenders. Ian McEwan is also in the list. Together with Rushdie, Ian will also be contending for booker, the second time. For Rushdie, the first time was with Midnight’s Child – Saleem Sinai. For Ian McEwan, whom I knew only because of his booker prize, it was Amsterdam.

Rushdie’s last two books seemed to be out of place. Especially The ground beneath her feet featuring the Bombay rock band, seemed to have a great start but wasn’t convincing with all the extended romance. And I comfortably didn’t read his next book, The Fury. More than the booker prize, I would be personally happy if Shalimar The Clown would be impressive.

P.S – Any one has a clue why SalmanRushdie.com is registered by some hosting company which does nothing with it.

14 thoughts on “Rushdie for Booker

  1. Ah, Salman – I bought The Satanic Verses on principle and waded my way through it. If only he wasn’t up his own fundament so much he might be a more enjoyable writer to read. Yes he has a brain the size of a planet but without emotional engagement it is hard to care what happens to his characters. Maybe he needed the naivete of youth (his own levels of innocence being way above mortals of course) in order to write the beautiful and affecting Midnight’s Children. Even then, however, that precociousness, that “I’ll just throw in a fourth allusion here”, was already visible. How sad, too, that Zadie Smith appears to have been so influenced by him – she was “lucky” with White Teeth, however, because she had youth and gender on her side so emotional engagement found its way to the page. Mind you, maybe I’m talking nonsense and she hasn’t even read Rushdie. In which case, my apologies to her but I would suggest she does so in order to see where not to go.

  2. If you are interested in Rushdie, you should check out his first novel, Grimus. There is no element of reality in that novel and it simply deals with relationships, people, emotions.

  3. I almost totally agree with you Patrick. He builds so much dark comedy around his characters that it becomes difficult to associate with any of them.

    Midnight’s children had that association at some level though, with the story narration element. Grimus has it really obviously with the lead character being very easy to empathise with. Grimus is earlier than MC, so he was probably more honest and naive then.

    Anyway,

  4. Cybersquatting? Is that still allowed? Anyhow, nice blog, a little bit of everything. I am trying some writing experiments of my own. Please do check and leave an opinion behind.

    – wannabe writer.

  5. I liked The Fury – it was a short novel and was somewhat light stuff from rushdie.Apart from Ludlum, stephen King and to an extent mario puzo, I cant read voluminous stories.and lazygeek why no mention of padma laxmi?
    -)

  6. Give full text in your RSS feeds.
    don’t be concerned about your adsense earnings,there is an option to send ads through RSS feeds as well.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: