What do you think?
Rate this book
L'Enchanteresse de Florence
Curieuse apparition que ce jeune homme blond fièrement dressé sur un char à bœufs et sur le point d'entrer à la cour du grand Moghol, au cœur des Indes. Le voyageur se fait appeler " Mogor dell'Amore " et prétend détenir un secret. Ce qu'il va révéler à l'empereur est une histoire fantastique: il affirme être le fils de l'Enchanteresse de Florence, princesse moghole oubliée, maîtresse sulfureuse d'un soldat florentin, à la beauté envoûtante et aux pouvoirs mystérieux. Sa légende est nimbée d'une aura de magie, d'énigme et de mensonge. L'empereur ne sait que croire, jusqu'à ce que l'Enchanteresse à la jeunesse éternelle, le visite en rêve... Son histoire nous emmène sur les traces d'un destin fabuleux et relie un Orient conquérant et contemplatif à l'Occident sensuel et terrible de la Renaissance florentine. D'une cour l'autre, au rythme des complots et des intrigues, on croise sorcières et fêlons, l'ombre de Savonarole, les Vespucci ou Machiavel, personnages troubles qui peuplent la légende de l'Enchanteresse de Florence. Rushdie s'adonne ici à la magie, compose une œuvre foisonnante et prouve une fois encore une puissance créatrice hors du commun.
407 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
1123 people are currently reading
16275 people want to read
About the author
Salman Rushdie
201 books13k followersSir Ahmed Salman Rushdie is an Indian-born British and American novelist. His work often combines magic realism with historical fiction and primarily deals with connections, disruptions, and migrations between Eastern and Western civilizations, typically set on the Indian subcontinent. Rushdie's second novel, Midnight's Children (1981), won the Booker Prize in 1981 and was deemed to be "the best novel of all winners" on two occasions, marking the 25th and the 40th anniversary of the prize.
After his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), Rushdie became the subject of several assassination attempts and death threats, including a fatwa calling for his death issued by Ruhollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran. In total, 20 countries banned the book. Numerous killings and bombings have been carried out by extremists who cite the book as motivation, sparking a debate about censorship and religiously motivated violence. In 2022, Rushdie survived a stabbing at the Chautauqua Institution in Chautauqua, New York.
In 1983, Rushdie was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He was appointed a Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres of France in 1999. Rushdie was knighted in 2007 for his services to literature. In 2008, The Times ranked him 13th on its list of the 50 greatest British writers since 1945. Since 2000, Rushdie has lived in the United States. He was named Distinguished Writer in Residence at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute of New York University in 2015. Earlier, he taught at Emory University. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In 2012, he published Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of the events following The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in April 2023.
Rushdie's personal life, including his five marriages and four divorces, has attracted notable media attention and controversies, particularly during his marriage to actress Padma Lakshmi.
After his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), Rushdie became the subject of several assassination attempts and death threats, including a fatwa calling for his death issued by Ruhollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran. In total, 20 countries banned the book. Numerous killings and bombings have been carried out by extremists who cite the book as motivation, sparking a debate about censorship and religiously motivated violence. In 2022, Rushdie survived a stabbing at the Chautauqua Institution in Chautauqua, New York.
In 1983, Rushdie was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He was appointed a Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres of France in 1999. Rushdie was knighted in 2007 for his services to literature. In 2008, The Times ranked him 13th on its list of the 50 greatest British writers since 1945. Since 2000, Rushdie has lived in the United States. He was named Distinguished Writer in Residence at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute of New York University in 2015. Earlier, he taught at Emory University. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In 2012, he published Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of the events following The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in April 2023.
Rushdie's personal life, including his five marriages and four divorces, has attracted notable media attention and controversies, particularly during his marriage to actress Padma Lakshmi.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,269 reviews
November 14, 2008
On occasion a novel receives harsh treatment from critics not based on the actual work, but rather because it is not what the critics want it to be; this then is the only explanation I can find to explain the harsh, often shrill, reviews received by Rushdie's equisite "The Enchantress of Florence." Having read several of these negative assessments I find the same sub-text runs through them all, namely the complaint that "Enchantress" is neither Rushdie's masterwork "Midnight's Children" nor that lesser work for which he became broadly famous - or in other circles infamous - "The Satanic Verses." To be sure, "Enchantress" is a far different book than Rushdie's previous work, less meditative and more fantastical, yet what is the problem with a great writer branching out into new genres and worlds? While I have loved several of his earlier work, for his choice to create the extraordinary world of "Enchantress" I celebrate Rushdie's genius and thank him for giving me what I can only describe as an extraordinary read.
Other reviewers have offered excellent plot synopsis of "The Enchantress of Florence" and therefore I will offer only the briefest details of the story lines. A blond haired stranger, calling himself Mogor del'Amore (the Mughal of Love) appears in the quasi-magical city of Akbar, the Mughal King of Kings. The stranger claims to be the descendant of Akbar's grandfather's lost younger sister, carried into captivity earlier. He regales Akbar with the tale of the "lost princess" and how she journeyed across Eurasia and found herself eventually in the city of Florence. Overtime a horde of historical personages make appearances, some major, others less so, such as members of the Medici family and Machiavelli.
The story itself is so rich with detail that on occasion the reader feels as if they have been a guest at a feast. One constantly questions which details are true and which are products of Rushdie's extraordinary imagination. Interestingly, Rushdie spent years researching this work and in interviews claims that much of what one might think the most fantastical - the Shi'a monarch who uses his enemy's skull as a drinking goblet or the Ottoman Caliph who's gardeners double as his executioners - are in fact the ones that are true. On occasion on really wishes that there were a study guide to go along with the book.
Like the best fairy tales, Rushdie's "Enchantress" layers in many deep and vexing questions that transcend any age: What does it mean to be real? What is the good life? How can one be happy? All of this arrives in a story written with such incomparable talent, that one can not easily put it down. "The Enchantress of Florence" may not have been the work that the critics wanted Rushdie to write, but I have little doubt that in generations to come, readers will recognize it as among his greatest works.
Other reviewers have offered excellent plot synopsis of "The Enchantress of Florence" and therefore I will offer only the briefest details of the story lines. A blond haired stranger, calling himself Mogor del'Amore (the Mughal of Love) appears in the quasi-magical city of Akbar, the Mughal King of Kings. The stranger claims to be the descendant of Akbar's grandfather's lost younger sister, carried into captivity earlier. He regales Akbar with the tale of the "lost princess" and how she journeyed across Eurasia and found herself eventually in the city of Florence. Overtime a horde of historical personages make appearances, some major, others less so, such as members of the Medici family and Machiavelli.
The story itself is so rich with detail that on occasion the reader feels as if they have been a guest at a feast. One constantly questions which details are true and which are products of Rushdie's extraordinary imagination. Interestingly, Rushdie spent years researching this work and in interviews claims that much of what one might think the most fantastical - the Shi'a monarch who uses his enemy's skull as a drinking goblet or the Ottoman Caliph who's gardeners double as his executioners - are in fact the ones that are true. On occasion on really wishes that there were a study guide to go along with the book.
Like the best fairy tales, Rushdie's "Enchantress" layers in many deep and vexing questions that transcend any age: What does it mean to be real? What is the good life? How can one be happy? All of this arrives in a story written with such incomparable talent, that one can not easily put it down. "The Enchantress of Florence" may not have been the work that the critics wanted Rushdie to write, but I have little doubt that in generations to come, readers will recognize it as among his greatest works.
July 29, 2015
I'm a little over halfway through this and so far almost every single female character is a prostitute or a slave. Three women have committed suicide because of a man. Also there's a female character who is literally a figment of a male character's imagination and she's more dynamic than any of the (few) real women in this fucking book.
Ugh. Most likely will not finish.
Ugh. Most likely will not finish.
December 23, 2015
Welcome to realm where Story reigns, courtesy of the master of ceremony Salman Rushdie.
In a somptuous palace of red stone dwells the absolute ruler of the world, the great Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great - warrior, philosopher, despot and lover. A setting worthy of the Arabian Nights, and according to those tenets here comes a traveler / con-artist / magician calling himself the Mughal of Love, He will have to redeem his life like Scheherezade through stories : improbable stories, fantastic stories, epic stories, outright lies, stories embedded within stories. The Emperor will either heap gold on his head or throw him from the highest tower.
"If there is a knower of tongues here, fetch him;
There's a stranger in the city
And he has many things to say.
Mirza Ghalib, translated by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi"
Salman Rushdie has done his research extremely well: Both Fatehpur Sikri and Florence come alive in multicolored landscapes, vibrant with life and symbolism. Nicollo Machiavelli, Andrea Doria, the Medici and the Vespucci families, Akbar and his Nine Jewels are all historical figures. Even my local hero Vlad the Impaler has a couple of pages. I am reminded of the extraordinary movie "The Fall" and indeed some of the locations, the unreliable narrator and the fantastic coincidences of fate can be found there.
It is easy to check with Wikipedia and find out that most of the facts presented here are true. Yet the world inhabited by the characters is not the one to be found in history books. The proponents of the "magical realism" school claim that reality is subjective, it is re-created daily through our imagination. It is stated more than once in this text:
"All our certainties are being blown away and we must live in Gulbadan's universe of mystery and doubt"
"Language upon a silvered tongue affords enchantment enough"
"She had sailed away into unreality, into a world of fantasy which men were still dreaming into being"
The book is one of a breed that requires attention and patience on the part of the reader. I took my time with it, returning and reading again and again some paragraphs. The plot takes sometimes second place, but here it is taster in the words of the storyteller:
"And in the end the princess reached Italy in the company of a mighty warrior. Argalia and Angelica were their names. Argalia bore enchanted weapons, and in his retinue were four terrifying giants, and by his side rode Angelica, the princess of Cathay and India, the most beautiful woman in the world, and an enchantress beyond compare."
From Agra to Samarkhand, Istanbul to Genoa and Florence - this is a fantastic voyage that I do not regret taking.
[edit for html formatting - 2015]
In a somptuous palace of red stone dwells the absolute ruler of the world, the great Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great - warrior, philosopher, despot and lover. A setting worthy of the Arabian Nights, and according to those tenets here comes a traveler / con-artist / magician calling himself the Mughal of Love, He will have to redeem his life like Scheherezade through stories : improbable stories, fantastic stories, epic stories, outright lies, stories embedded within stories. The Emperor will either heap gold on his head or throw him from the highest tower.
"If there is a knower of tongues here, fetch him;
There's a stranger in the city
And he has many things to say.
Mirza Ghalib, translated by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi"
Salman Rushdie has done his research extremely well: Both Fatehpur Sikri and Florence come alive in multicolored landscapes, vibrant with life and symbolism. Nicollo Machiavelli, Andrea Doria, the Medici and the Vespucci families, Akbar and his Nine Jewels are all historical figures. Even my local hero Vlad the Impaler has a couple of pages. I am reminded of the extraordinary movie "The Fall" and indeed some of the locations, the unreliable narrator and the fantastic coincidences of fate can be found there.
It is easy to check with Wikipedia and find out that most of the facts presented here are true. Yet the world inhabited by the characters is not the one to be found in history books. The proponents of the "magical realism" school claim that reality is subjective, it is re-created daily through our imagination. It is stated more than once in this text:
"All our certainties are being blown away and we must live in Gulbadan's universe of mystery and doubt"
"Language upon a silvered tongue affords enchantment enough"
"She had sailed away into unreality, into a world of fantasy which men were still dreaming into being"
The book is one of a breed that requires attention and patience on the part of the reader. I took my time with it, returning and reading again and again some paragraphs. The plot takes sometimes second place, but here it is taster in the words of the storyteller:
"And in the end the princess reached Italy in the company of a mighty warrior. Argalia and Angelica were their names. Argalia bore enchanted weapons, and in his retinue were four terrifying giants, and by his side rode Angelica, the princess of Cathay and India, the most beautiful woman in the world, and an enchantress beyond compare."
From Agra to Samarkhand, Istanbul to Genoa and Florence - this is a fantastic voyage that I do not regret taking.
[edit for html formatting - 2015]
June 4, 2023
7 PILLARS OF MINDFULNESS
🙏
Patience: to be patient is to be completely open to each moment
I savored each moment of The Enchantress of Florence, this winding tale of two cities, Sikri and Florence, and two men, an emperor and a wanderer, and three women, a phantom and an enchantress and a mirror, and three boys, friends who grow up and apart and together again. The book is a tapestry of stories upon stories, an enchantment, spacious and imposing and palatial, a memory palace. Patience is required when exploring this place, wandering through its vaulted halls and bedchambers, its thronged courtyards and haunted galleries, the overgrown gardens, the landscapes. There is much to see! So much to take in. No need to rush.
🙏
Non-Striving: allow things to be as they are; do not become attached to a specific outcome
The journey is the destination.
🙏
Trust: trust your own insight and wisdom; trusting yourself will allow you to have more trust in others
I trust that I know myself, well enough to know what gives me pleasure in reading, and elsewhere. History and traveling into the past; characters that may be mysteries to themselves, to others, but become relatable to me. Prose that isn't shy, that has style; writing that is nimble or sleek or ornate or all of those things at different times. I like adventures of the body and of the mind, writers who write of bodies and minds. Authors who are playful, ironic, not afraid of darkness and tragedy but not embracing either. I know that Salman Rushdie is just such an author, from my experience with Shalimar the Clown. I came to this novel trusting in him completely. My trust was not broken!
🙏
Beginner's Mind: shed preconceptions and see things as if for the first time
Shalimar the Clown was a singular experience for me, how I read it, my changing reactions, where I read it, what I felt when I had finished reading it, what I felt when I wrote its review. So much emotion in my memory of that book. It all had to be let go. Every artist brings who they are to their works, their specific and personal concerns and interests; and so every author may be seen as writing one great book, with each separate novel just an installment in their overall work. The challenge for the completist is to see each novel as an individual thing, to read it as if nothing came before or after, to resist the comparing and contrasting. Every reader brings who they are to the books they read, their experience with other perhaps similar books, their perceptions of the author, their own personal and specific perspective on how a book should read, how a narrative should unfold. Let it go... let it all go... easier said than done though.
🙏
Non-Judgment: cultivate the ability to understand things around us without automatically assigning them labels of good or bad
The negative reviews for this novel are something else. The apparent sexism of the author, the bibliography, the feeling that the book is bland (?!), a "lush emptiness" with "wooden blasphemies"... one reviewer "surprised with the hatred I feel towards this book" and another fantasizing "If I ever came across Rushdie in person, I would like nothing more than to pelt him with eggs." LOL at the strident seething of these reviews! Must resist the urge to judge them.
🙏
Acceptance: stay in the present - regretting the past and focusing on the future will inevitably lead to tension...
If only the characters had reflected upon this tenet, so much sorrow could have been avoided. But then we wouldn't have this book...
🙏
Letting go: our minds seem determined to hold on to certain beliefs and thoughts - let them be, let them end, as all things must, eventually.
In the end, time marches on and things crumble, people pass, the world changes. A lake is emptied and a city fades. Three women disappear, three friends are parted. A wanderer runs away, an emperor moves on. I closed the book, sighed, and thought, what next?
🙏
Patience: to be patient is to be completely open to each moment
I savored each moment of The Enchantress of Florence, this winding tale of two cities, Sikri and Florence, and two men, an emperor and a wanderer, and three women, a phantom and an enchantress and a mirror, and three boys, friends who grow up and apart and together again. The book is a tapestry of stories upon stories, an enchantment, spacious and imposing and palatial, a memory palace. Patience is required when exploring this place, wandering through its vaulted halls and bedchambers, its thronged courtyards and haunted galleries, the overgrown gardens, the landscapes. There is much to see! So much to take in. No need to rush.
🙏
Non-Striving: allow things to be as they are; do not become attached to a specific outcome
The journey is the destination.
🙏
Trust: trust your own insight and wisdom; trusting yourself will allow you to have more trust in others
I trust that I know myself, well enough to know what gives me pleasure in reading, and elsewhere. History and traveling into the past; characters that may be mysteries to themselves, to others, but become relatable to me. Prose that isn't shy, that has style; writing that is nimble or sleek or ornate or all of those things at different times. I like adventures of the body and of the mind, writers who write of bodies and minds. Authors who are playful, ironic, not afraid of darkness and tragedy but not embracing either. I know that Salman Rushdie is just such an author, from my experience with Shalimar the Clown. I came to this novel trusting in him completely. My trust was not broken!
🙏
Beginner's Mind: shed preconceptions and see things as if for the first time
Shalimar the Clown was a singular experience for me, how I read it, my changing reactions, where I read it, what I felt when I had finished reading it, what I felt when I wrote its review. So much emotion in my memory of that book. It all had to be let go. Every artist brings who they are to their works, their specific and personal concerns and interests; and so every author may be seen as writing one great book, with each separate novel just an installment in their overall work. The challenge for the completist is to see each novel as an individual thing, to read it as if nothing came before or after, to resist the comparing and contrasting. Every reader brings who they are to the books they read, their experience with other perhaps similar books, their perceptions of the author, their own personal and specific perspective on how a book should read, how a narrative should unfold. Let it go... let it all go... easier said than done though.
🙏
Non-Judgment: cultivate the ability to understand things around us without automatically assigning them labels of good or bad
The negative reviews for this novel are something else. The apparent sexism of the author, the bibliography, the feeling that the book is bland (?!), a "lush emptiness" with "wooden blasphemies"... one reviewer "surprised with the hatred I feel towards this book" and another fantasizing "If I ever came across Rushdie in person, I would like nothing more than to pelt him with eggs." LOL at the strident seething of these reviews! Must resist the urge to judge them.
🙏
Acceptance: stay in the present - regretting the past and focusing on the future will inevitably lead to tension...
If only the characters had reflected upon this tenet, so much sorrow could have been avoided. But then we wouldn't have this book...
🙏
Letting go: our minds seem determined to hold on to certain beliefs and thoughts - let them be, let them end, as all things must, eventually.
In the end, time marches on and things crumble, people pass, the world changes. A lake is emptied and a city fades. Three women disappear, three friends are parted. A wanderer runs away, an emperor moves on. I closed the book, sighed, and thought, what next?
September 9, 2014
I'm surprised with the hatred I feel towards this book. I mean, it's Salman frickin' Rushdie, right? Isn't he some kind of literary god? I'm going to have to read his other books to see, because this one was trash.
I've read sexist books before. There are plenty of them out there, but usually I can glide over the sexist bits because overall the plot/characters/writing are good enough that I choose to ignore the fact that the women are horribly written (looking at you, Robert Jordan). But in this book I cared not a whit about any character, the plot was leaden and the writing was so stilted and musty I thought for a bit it had to be a translated book, despite the fact that I know Rushdie writes in English. Basically, every woman in this is either an insecure shrew (Machiavelli's wife, Akbar's wives) or an empty vessel that men project their sexual fantasies on to. The Enchantress herself is basically powered by hotness. Her magic is her beauty. The female servants in the book are literally their mistress' echo (Gulbadan's servant) or mirror (the enchantress' servant) thus devoiding them of the little personality that the other women get. The enchantress (whose second husband names her Angelique, a name she decides to share with her mirror/servant) decides to fulfill the fantasy that Budweiser ads promise in commercials, namely a threesome with hot, willing twins. Of course, there's never any jealousy between the enchantress and the mirror over the second husband, nor is the mirror ever shown to care that her mistress basically whores her out to the second husband. That would require them to be presented as human, when really the women in this book are ciphers for male fantasies. I mean, for goodness sake, the Mughal's favorite wife (who was an actual historical person) is a figment of her husband's imagination (who, despite this, is able to give him great sex). And don't even get me started on the part of the book when all the women in the Mughal's city became petty and quarrelsome with each other, but were cured when they were ordered to walk around naked all day and realized they were all flawed and human (uh...yeah...). The worst part of it all was that I got the feeling that Rushdie considered this book romantic. No wonder this guy has been married and divorced four times (that is probably a low blow, but the fact that he obviously does not understand women as human beings comes across in this book incredibly strongly).
Also, why the heck did he include a bibliography? This book is completely a book of magical realism and so much of it is detached from reality and obviously NOT historical, you can't really trust any of it to be historically accurate unless you're familiar with the period and can judge for yourself what is real and what is false. Is the bibliography just there to show off that he did in fact do research?
I've read sexist books before. There are plenty of them out there, but usually I can glide over the sexist bits because overall the plot/characters/writing are good enough that I choose to ignore the fact that the women are horribly written (looking at you, Robert Jordan). But in this book I cared not a whit about any character, the plot was leaden and the writing was so stilted and musty I thought for a bit it had to be a translated book, despite the fact that I know Rushdie writes in English. Basically, every woman in this is either an insecure shrew (Machiavelli's wife, Akbar's wives) or an empty vessel that men project their sexual fantasies on to. The Enchantress herself is basically powered by hotness. Her magic is her beauty. The female servants in the book are literally their mistress' echo (Gulbadan's servant) or mirror (the enchantress' servant) thus devoiding them of the little personality that the other women get. The enchantress (whose second husband names her Angelique, a name she decides to share with her mirror/servant) decides to fulfill the fantasy that Budweiser ads promise in commercials, namely a threesome with hot, willing twins. Of course, there's never any jealousy between the enchantress and the mirror over the second husband, nor is the mirror ever shown to care that her mistress basically whores her out to the second husband. That would require them to be presented as human, when really the women in this book are ciphers for male fantasies. I mean, for goodness sake, the Mughal's favorite wife (who was an actual historical person) is a figment of her husband's imagination (who, despite this, is able to give him great sex). And don't even get me started on the part of the book when all the women in the Mughal's city became petty and quarrelsome with each other, but were cured when they were ordered to walk around naked all day and realized they were all flawed and human (uh...yeah...). The worst part of it all was that I got the feeling that Rushdie considered this book romantic. No wonder this guy has been married and divorced four times (that is probably a low blow, but the fact that he obviously does not understand women as human beings comes across in this book incredibly strongly).
Also, why the heck did he include a bibliography? This book is completely a book of magical realism and so much of it is detached from reality and obviously NOT historical, you can't really trust any of it to be historically accurate unless you're familiar with the period and can judge for yourself what is real and what is false. Is the bibliography just there to show off that he did in fact do research?
November 12, 2018
This is the second time now I have abandoned a Rushdie novel, so in all likelihood I won't bother reading him again. The fact I managed to get beyond the halfway point made me feel like I deserved a nice pat on the back. He is simply not a writer I hold in high regard anyway, and this twaddle just confirms that even stronger, as it's blatantly sexist, and an insult to women. Things started out quite promising, before I drastically lost interest. and couldn't care less about any of it's characters.
If I ever came across Rushdie in person, I would like nothing more than to pelt him with eggs.
If I ever came across Rushdie in person, I would like nothing more than to pelt him with eggs.
July 21, 2008
While every review seems a need to state the basic plot of the yellow-haired stranger appearing in Akbar's court I will quickly skip over this and go straight to what I thought. I felt that the book was very uneven, there where parts that were just wonderful and deserving a full five stars, in particular the story of the illuminator who disappeared into his own artwork and the concept of Jhoda, and others that were so very boring that the average became a two.
The main problem I had was that it was a very slow read due to the fact that at times it felt like a history book (not surprising considering Rushdie's background)and had so much historical detail crammed in that I felt I really needed a who's who guide and lots of maps just to fingure out what was going on. Also the ending was a bit rushed and vague, and a bit ewwwww with the incest.
I also had the opportunity to go to his book talk and signing for this book and I have to say that he did a wonderful job actually summing things up and I feel that his talk added alot to the book, laying out more clearly what the historical situation was like during the time of Akbar, and maybe if that had been infused into the book then I wouldn't have felt quite so lost sometimes.
The main problem I had was that it was a very slow read due to the fact that at times it felt like a history book (not surprising considering Rushdie's background)and had so much historical detail crammed in that I felt I really needed a who's who guide and lots of maps just to fingure out what was going on. Also the ending was a bit rushed and vague, and a bit ewwwww with the incest.
I also had the opportunity to go to his book talk and signing for this book and I have to say that he did a wonderful job actually summing things up and I feel that his talk added alot to the book, laying out more clearly what the historical situation was like during the time of Akbar, and maybe if that had been infused into the book then I wouldn't have felt quite so lost sometimes.
September 1, 2022
(review in English below)
Gostei imenso!
Gostei da história, dos personagens, da escrita, do humor... enfim, de tudo!
Muitos dos personagens e acontecimentos são históricos, o autor fez uma intensa pesquisa e o livro inclui uma bibliografia de várias páginas no final.
Recomendo especialmente a quem gostar de histórias do género das Mil e Uma Noites.
E fiquei com muita vontade de ler mais coisas do senhor Rushdie!
I enjoyed it immensely!
I liked the story, the characters, the writing, the humour... everything, really!
A lot of the characters and events are historical - the author did an extensive research and the book includes several pages of references in the end.
I recommend it especially to those who like the kind of stories as in One Thousand and One Nights.
And now I really want to read more by Mr. Rushdie!
Gostei imenso!
Gostei da história, dos personagens, da escrita, do humor... enfim, de tudo!
Muitos dos personagens e acontecimentos são históricos, o autor fez uma intensa pesquisa e o livro inclui uma bibliografia de várias páginas no final.
Recomendo especialmente a quem gostar de histórias do género das Mil e Uma Noites.
E fiquei com muita vontade de ler mais coisas do senhor Rushdie!
I enjoyed it immensely!
I liked the story, the characters, the writing, the humour... everything, really!
A lot of the characters and events are historical - the author did an extensive research and the book includes several pages of references in the end.
I recommend it especially to those who like the kind of stories as in One Thousand and One Nights.
And now I really want to read more by Mr. Rushdie!
July 30, 2020
«The Enchantress of Florence»
Salman Rushdie
⠀
«ФЛОРЕНТІЙСЬКА ЧАРІВНИЦЯ» Салман Рушді
Видавництво Жупанського 2010
⠀
«Сюрреалістична історія одного химерного чоловіка»
⠀
Казка, легенда чи історична правда?
⠀
Палке кохання, смертельні зради і воєнні звитяги!
⠀
Прекрасні чаклунки, вмілі куртизанки і уявні коханки!
⠀
Історія Заходу і Сходу в суміші правди і вигадки!
⠀
Історичні постатті, імперії й герої книг в шаленому танку слів!
⠀
Це моє перше знайомство з автором. Задум цікавий, але складно повністю оцінити книжку через якість перекладу і помилки в тексті.
⠀
Цитата:
⠀
«- У моєму місті, - промовив він значно пізніше, схилившись на подушки серед меланхолії жінок після кохання, - справді вихована жінка має бути розважливою і цнотливою, і не бути об‘єктом чуток. Така жінка має бути скромною і спокійною, щирою і великодушною. У танку вона не повинна робити надто різких рухів, а в музиці їй годиться уникати мідних сурм і гучних барабанів. Вона має бути злегка підфарбована, а її зачіска не повинна видаватися надто пишною.
⠀
Не зважаючи на те, що імператор уже майже спав, у нього з горлянки вирвалося щось схоже на відразу.
⠀
- Тоді ваші добре виховані чоловіки мусять помирати з нудьги, - зумів промовити він.
⠀
- Але ж є ще куртизанки, - сказав Маґор, - саме вони відповідають усім вашим ідеалам, за винятком їхнього вміння викладати підлогу кольоровим склом.
⠀
- Ніколи не кохай жінку, яка не знається на викладанні підлоги кольоровим склом, - сказав імператор поважно, без жодного натяку на жарт. - Така жінка - це сварлива дурепа.»
⠀
Анотація:
⠀
«Флорентійська чарівниця» (2008 р.) — новий роман Салмана Рушді, двічі лауреата Букерівської премії, автора скандально відомого твору «Сатанинські вірші», здобув блискавичну популярність у світі. Письменник змальовує карколомні життєві шляхи своїх героїв — жінки і чоловіка доби Відродження у дещо феєричній, казково-пригодницькій формі, їхнє палке кохання на тлі тогочасних політичних подій, гаремних і двірцевих інтриґ та звичаїв, що побутували в Італії, Індії і Туреччині. Традиційно автор не припиняє дивувати читача незвичними поворотами сюжету і ризикованістю стилю, зіткненням філософії Сходу і Заходу.»
⠀
#примхливачитака
Salman Rushdie
⠀
«ФЛОРЕНТІЙСЬКА ЧАРІВНИЦЯ» Салман Рушді
Видавництво Жупанського 2010
⠀
«Сюрреалістична історія одного химерного чоловіка»
⠀
Казка, легенда чи історична правда?
⠀
Палке кохання, смертельні зради і воєнні звитяги!
⠀
Прекрасні чаклунки, вмілі куртизанки і уявні коханки!
⠀
Історія Заходу і Сходу в суміші правди і вигадки!
⠀
Історичні постатті, імперії й герої книг в шаленому танку слів!
⠀
Це моє перше знайомство з автором. Задум цікавий, але складно повністю оцінити книжку через якість перекладу і помилки в тексті.
⠀
Цитата:
⠀
«- У моєму місті, - промовив він значно пізніше, схилившись на подушки серед меланхолії жінок після кохання, - справді вихована жінка має бути розважливою і цнотливою, і не бути об‘єктом чуток. Така жінка має бути скромною і спокійною, щирою і великодушною. У танку вона не повинна робити надто різких рухів, а в музиці їй годиться уникати мідних сурм і гучних барабанів. Вона має бути злегка підфарбована, а її зачіска не повинна видаватися надто пишною.
⠀
Не зважаючи на те, що імператор уже майже спав, у нього з горлянки вирвалося щось схоже на відразу.
⠀
- Тоді ваші добре виховані чоловіки мусять помирати з нудьги, - зумів промовити він.
⠀
- Але ж є ще куртизанки, - сказав Маґор, - саме вони відповідають усім вашим ідеалам, за винятком їхнього вміння викладати підлогу кольоровим склом.
⠀
- Ніколи не кохай жінку, яка не знається на викладанні підлоги кольоровим склом, - сказав імператор поважно, без жодного натяку на жарт. - Така жінка - це сварлива дурепа.»
⠀
Анотація:
⠀
«Флорентійська чарівниця» (2008 р.) — новий роман Салмана Рушді, двічі лауреата Букерівської премії, автора скандально відомого твору «Сатанинські вірші», здобув блискавичну популярність у світі. Письменник змальовує карколомні життєві шляхи своїх героїв — жінки і чоловіка доби Відродження у дещо феєричній, казково-пригодницькій формі, їхнє палке кохання на тлі тогочасних політичних подій, гаремних і двірцевих інтриґ та звичаїв, що побутували в Італії, Індії і Туреччині. Традиційно автор не припиняє дивувати читача незвичними поворотами сюжету і ризикованістю стилю, зіткненням філософії Сходу і Заходу.»
⠀
#примхливачитака
December 14, 2017
Floransa Büyücüsü renkli, bol hikâyeli ve masalsı bir roman. Biri bana bir romanı böyle tarif etse çok heyecanlanırım, ama okuyunca sürekli kararsız kalıyorum bu iyi bir roman mı diye. Bu romanı anlayabilmek ve değerlendirebilmek için ona benzeyen diğer romanları göz önünde bulundurmak gerektiğini düşünüyorum; ilk aklıma gelenleri Yüzyıllık Yalnızlık, Puslu Kıtalar Atlası, Benim Adım Kırmızı. Bu tarz romanların bir adı var mı bilmiyorum ama cümbüş roman diye tanımlamak istiyorum.
Bu romanların ortak özelliği, bizim bildiğimiz biçimdeki dünyanın kırılması, tuhaflaşması ve daha renkli, daha karikatürize, daha eğlenceli hale gelmesi. Bunu ister Benim Adım Kırmızı gibi bazı edebi oyunların arkasına saklanarak yapsın, ister büyülü gerçekçiliği kullansın, sonuç olarak yaratılan dünyalar birbirine benziyor. Böyle bir dünya yaratmak, o dünyayı onlarca hikâye ile birbirine bağlamak muhakkak bir beceri işi. Fakat "cümbüş roman" adını verdiğim bu romanları da ikiye ayırmak gerektiğini düşünüyorum: Okuru dünyasına yabancılaştıranlar ve okura yabancı dünyada rehberlik edenler.
Tuhaflığını karmaşıklığından alan diye de isimlendirebileceğim okuru dünyasına yabancılaştıran romanlara Yüzyıllık Yalnızlık ve Puslu Kıtalar Atlası iki mükemmel örnek. Bu iki kitabı da bitirenlerle karşılaşınca sık sık şunu soruyorum: Kitaptan aklında ne kaldı? Genelde bir şaşkınlık, bir duraksama ve söylenebilen küçük birkaç cümle haricinde bir cevap gelmiyor. Çünkü doğamız itibariyle neden sonuç ilişkileriyle kavradığımız şeyleri daha kolay hatırlayabiliyoruz. Eğitim sisteminin berbatlığı da tam olarak buradan geliyor, neden sonuç ilişkilerini değil yalnızca durumları ezberleyenler, anlam zincirini oluşturamadıkları için haliyle hiçbir şey hatırlayamıyorlar. Bu iki romanda da bu nedenle hiçbir şey hatırlanmıyor. Neden sonuç ilişkileri çok zayıf. Ama okura bunu hissettirmemek için hikâye temposu çok yüksek ayarlanıyor. Sürekli bir şeyler oluyor, bir şeyler değişiyor ve okur "dur bakalım" diyerek okumaya devam ediyor. Marquez ve İhsan Oktay Anar alınmazsa, bir de hile yaptıklarını düşünüyorum: İsimlerle aldatmaca yaratıyorlar. Marquez bir ailedeki herkese aynı isimleri vererek, İ. O. Anar ise bir karakterden her bahsettiğinde bir paragraf soy ağacını vererek bizi dünyaya yabancılaştırıyorlar. Puslu Kıtalar Atlası'nda kullanılan Osmanlıca'nın da bu işe yaradığını düşünüyorum. Hem hikâyeler çok hızlı ilerlediği için hem de neden sonuç ilişki kurmaktan kaçındıkları için çoğunlukla karakterler derinleştirilemiyor. Ya iki boyutlu kalıyorlar ya da onları çok az tanıyabiliyoruz. Bir yazarın derdi ekseriyetle okuru yarattığı dünyaya yakınlaştırmak iken, bu romanlarda okur bile isteye yabancılaştırılıyor ve bu durumda okur, romanın dünyasının çok büyük, çok karmaşık, kendisinin ise okyanustan bir damla su almaya çalışan biri gibi, o karmaşıklıktan hikâyeler koparan biri olduğunu düşünmeye başlıyor.
Okura yabancı dünyada rehberlik eden romana ise örnek olarak Benim Adım Kırmızı'yı düşünüyorum. Benim Adım Kırmızı'da neden sonuç ilişkileri gayet belirgin. Karakterler belli bir sistemle söz alıyor, başlıklandırma okurun işini kolaylaştırıyor. Olay örgüsü gayet belirgin, hikâyeler ise doğrudan bir amaca hizmet ediyor. Orhan Pamuk'u sık sık karmaşık yazmakla eleştirenleri görünce aklımın çıkması da bu yüzden. Orhan Pamuk her kitabında yarattığı tuhaf dünyada okuruna rehberlik ediyor, hiçbir şeyi olması gerekenden daha karmaşık hale getirmiyor, buna rağmen ortaya yukarıda saydığım örneklerdeki kadar tuhaf bir dünya çıkarıyor.
Ishiguro bu romanlara benzemeyen ama daha da tuhaf olan romanı Avunamayanlar için konuşurken, anlatabileceği en basit şekilde anlattığını, ama anlattığı şeyin karmaşık olduğunu söylüyordu ve bir şeyi gereksiz yere karmaşıklaştırmanın samimiyetsiz ve hoş olmayan bir davranış olduğunu söylüyordu. Ben de öyle düşünüyorum.
Floransa Büyücüsü'ne değinecek olursak, bu iki tip romanın tam ortasında olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Biraz ondan yapıyor, biraz bundan. Kitabın üçte biri tamamen gereksiz yere karışık. Hikâyenin sonunu başında okuyoruz ve doğal olarak ne karakterleri anlayabiliyoruz ne de amaçlarını. Yazar da bize bunları açık etmiyor. Kitaba ismini veren esas karakterini neredeyse kitabın ortasına okumaya başlıyoruz. Neden böyle bir tercih yapılmış? Yukarıda söylediklerimin ışığında çok da iyi niyetle olduğunu söyleyemeyeceğim. Ama kitabın ikinci bölümünden itibaren, o gereksiz yere karmaşıklaşan dünya yok oluyor ve çok iyi bir hikâye okumaya başlıyoruz. Gereksiz oyunlara da yer verilmiyor. Kara Göz'ün hikâyesini kitabın ortasından sonra bitirmek istemediği için böyle bir kronolojik sapmaya gitmiş de diyebiliriz, bunun da payı vardır belki ama sonuçta biz okuduğumuz 100 küsur sayfada neden böyle bir yabancılık hissedelim ki? Yine özel isimlerle okur yabancılaştırılıyor. Bunu da çok çalışan yazarın kaynaklarını açık etme ve verdiği emeği gösterme hevesi olarak yorumlamak mümkün, ama bunu yapacaksa bile iyi bir şekilde yapması gerekiyor. Benim Adım Kırmızı'da da onlarca eserden bahsediliyor, bilhassa nakkaşlardan uzun uzun bahsediliyor ama doğrudan hikâye onların üzerine kurulu zaten.
Floransa Büyücüsü yine karakterlerin zayıf olduğu bir roman. Ya iki boyutlular ya da hiç anlayamıyoruz. Tek iyi yaratılmış karakter Ekber Şah. Onun haricindekiler kukla gibi kalıyor. Bu yüzden de aslında yaşanan şeyleri çok da önemsemiyoruz.
Bu romanların ortak özelliği, bizim bildiğimiz biçimdeki dünyanın kırılması, tuhaflaşması ve daha renkli, daha karikatürize, daha eğlenceli hale gelmesi. Bunu ister Benim Adım Kırmızı gibi bazı edebi oyunların arkasına saklanarak yapsın, ister büyülü gerçekçiliği kullansın, sonuç olarak yaratılan dünyalar birbirine benziyor. Böyle bir dünya yaratmak, o dünyayı onlarca hikâye ile birbirine bağlamak muhakkak bir beceri işi. Fakat "cümbüş roman" adını verdiğim bu romanları da ikiye ayırmak gerektiğini düşünüyorum: Okuru dünyasına yabancılaştıranlar ve okura yabancı dünyada rehberlik edenler.
Tuhaflığını karmaşıklığından alan diye de isimlendirebileceğim okuru dünyasına yabancılaştıran romanlara Yüzyıllık Yalnızlık ve Puslu Kıtalar Atlası iki mükemmel örnek. Bu iki kitabı da bitirenlerle karşılaşınca sık sık şunu soruyorum: Kitaptan aklında ne kaldı? Genelde bir şaşkınlık, bir duraksama ve söylenebilen küçük birkaç cümle haricinde bir cevap gelmiyor. Çünkü doğamız itibariyle neden sonuç ilişkileriyle kavradığımız şeyleri daha kolay hatırlayabiliyoruz. Eğitim sisteminin berbatlığı da tam olarak buradan geliyor, neden sonuç ilişkilerini değil yalnızca durumları ezberleyenler, anlam zincirini oluşturamadıkları için haliyle hiçbir şey hatırlayamıyorlar. Bu iki romanda da bu nedenle hiçbir şey hatırlanmıyor. Neden sonuç ilişkileri çok zayıf. Ama okura bunu hissettirmemek için hikâye temposu çok yüksek ayarlanıyor. Sürekli bir şeyler oluyor, bir şeyler değişiyor ve okur "dur bakalım" diyerek okumaya devam ediyor. Marquez ve İhsan Oktay Anar alınmazsa, bir de hile yaptıklarını düşünüyorum: İsimlerle aldatmaca yaratıyorlar. Marquez bir ailedeki herkese aynı isimleri vererek, İ. O. Anar ise bir karakterden her bahsettiğinde bir paragraf soy ağacını vererek bizi dünyaya yabancılaştırıyorlar. Puslu Kıtalar Atlası'nda kullanılan Osmanlıca'nın da bu işe yaradığını düşünüyorum. Hem hikâyeler çok hızlı ilerlediği için hem de neden sonuç ilişki kurmaktan kaçındıkları için çoğunlukla karakterler derinleştirilemiyor. Ya iki boyutlu kalıyorlar ya da onları çok az tanıyabiliyoruz. Bir yazarın derdi ekseriyetle okuru yarattığı dünyaya yakınlaştırmak iken, bu romanlarda okur bile isteye yabancılaştırılıyor ve bu durumda okur, romanın dünyasının çok büyük, çok karmaşık, kendisinin ise okyanustan bir damla su almaya çalışan biri gibi, o karmaşıklıktan hikâyeler koparan biri olduğunu düşünmeye başlıyor.
Okura yabancı dünyada rehberlik eden romana ise örnek olarak Benim Adım Kırmızı'yı düşünüyorum. Benim Adım Kırmızı'da neden sonuç ilişkileri gayet belirgin. Karakterler belli bir sistemle söz alıyor, başlıklandırma okurun işini kolaylaştırıyor. Olay örgüsü gayet belirgin, hikâyeler ise doğrudan bir amaca hizmet ediyor. Orhan Pamuk'u sık sık karmaşık yazmakla eleştirenleri görünce aklımın çıkması da bu yüzden. Orhan Pamuk her kitabında yarattığı tuhaf dünyada okuruna rehberlik ediyor, hiçbir şeyi olması gerekenden daha karmaşık hale getirmiyor, buna rağmen ortaya yukarıda saydığım örneklerdeki kadar tuhaf bir dünya çıkarıyor.
Ishiguro bu romanlara benzemeyen ama daha da tuhaf olan romanı Avunamayanlar için konuşurken, anlatabileceği en basit şekilde anlattığını, ama anlattığı şeyin karmaşık olduğunu söylüyordu ve bir şeyi gereksiz yere karmaşıklaştırmanın samimiyetsiz ve hoş olmayan bir davranış olduğunu söylüyordu. Ben de öyle düşünüyorum.
Floransa Büyücüsü'ne değinecek olursak, bu iki tip romanın tam ortasında olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Biraz ondan yapıyor, biraz bundan. Kitabın üçte biri tamamen gereksiz yere karışık. Hikâyenin sonunu başında okuyoruz ve doğal olarak ne karakterleri anlayabiliyoruz ne de amaçlarını. Yazar da bize bunları açık etmiyor. Kitaba ismini veren esas karakterini neredeyse kitabın ortasına okumaya başlıyoruz. Neden böyle bir tercih yapılmış? Yukarıda söylediklerimin ışığında çok da iyi niyetle olduğunu söyleyemeyeceğim. Ama kitabın ikinci bölümünden itibaren, o gereksiz yere karmaşıklaşan dünya yok oluyor ve çok iyi bir hikâye okumaya başlıyoruz. Gereksiz oyunlara da yer verilmiyor. Kara Göz'ün hikâyesini kitabın ortasından sonra bitirmek istemediği için böyle bir kronolojik sapmaya gitmiş de diyebiliriz, bunun da payı vardır belki ama sonuçta biz okuduğumuz 100 küsur sayfada neden böyle bir yabancılık hissedelim ki? Yine özel isimlerle okur yabancılaştırılıyor. Bunu da çok çalışan yazarın kaynaklarını açık etme ve verdiği emeği gösterme hevesi olarak yorumlamak mümkün, ama bunu yapacaksa bile iyi bir şekilde yapması gerekiyor. Benim Adım Kırmızı'da da onlarca eserden bahsediliyor, bilhassa nakkaşlardan uzun uzun bahsediliyor ama doğrudan hikâye onların üzerine kurulu zaten.
Floransa Büyücüsü yine karakterlerin zayıf olduğu bir roman. Ya iki boyutlular ya da hiç anlayamıyoruz. Tek iyi yaratılmış karakter Ekber Şah. Onun haricindekiler kukla gibi kalıyor. Bu yüzden de aslında yaşanan şeyleri çok da önemsemiyoruz.
July 10, 2008
Filled with lush emptiness. There is more love-at-first-sight in the Enchantress than all other stories put together. Entire cities fall in love at first sight. And the level of subtlety rarely rises above this. After a promising first 80 pages or so, it begins to resemble a cartoon (in a bad way). Even the blasphemies in this book—-which seemed to be produced by Rushdie perfunctorily, like a band that always makes sure to play its most popular song—-are wooden and innocuous.
It’s too bad this book comes after Shalimar the Clown, which was a great book that healed the wounds Fury caused me (and presumably other Rushdie fans). I can’t tell if Enchantress is worse than Fury; the books are so different from each other on a surface level, but they share a common awfulness (and this awfulness has its source in Rushdie’s aesthetics gone haywire).
I also read that NYTimes David Gates review that's referred to below and agreed with its gist. As the reviewer put it: “Oh well, it’s his book.”
It’s too bad this book comes after Shalimar the Clown, which was a great book that healed the wounds Fury caused me (and presumably other Rushdie fans). I can’t tell if Enchantress is worse than Fury; the books are so different from each other on a surface level, but they share a common awfulness (and this awfulness has its source in Rushdie’s aesthetics gone haywire).
I also read that NYTimes David Gates review that's referred to below and agreed with its gist. As the reviewer put it: “Oh well, it’s his book.”
July 13, 2008
As a neophyte of Salman Rushdie's work, I was not fully prepared for The Enchantress of Florence, although I should have been. Rushdie possesses an uncanny ability to manipulate perspective. In his stories, the flow of time is always questionable, and subject to change--if it flows at all. And his characters are larger-than-life, capricious archetypes that embody the virtues and flaws of humanity.
In this novel, Rushdie runs two stories parallel to each other: that of Emperor Akbar's court, the emperor's life and philosophy; and the story of a man's heritage, of a lost Mughal princess who travels from Asia to Florence to the New World, then beyond. The boundaries between these two stories--the latter of which takes place in the first one's past--are flimsy, permeable. If you were expecting a linear narrative that reads like a movie novelization, then you a) have not read Salman Rushdie before and b) will not get that.
I might even characterize this story as a fable, for it carries that particular brand of enchantment about it. Romance, yes, that too: the main characters all mediate on the nature of love at one point or another. Cloaked in sixteenth-century philosophical ideas, these ruminations may seem pompous or boring, but I found them intriguing. Akbar struggles with the existence of God, the divine right to rule, whether might truly is the only arbiter of power. We also see a fictionalized Machiavelli, disenchanted with his wife, and like so many men in this story, drawn into the web of enchantment that the eponymous princess weaves.
Descend deeper through these layers, and Rushdie focuses on the nature of power for women in a world dominated by men. How do women exert their influence? Is their beauty, their sexuality, the only way they can ever gain power? In this book, two female characters are essentially imaginary, constructed from the mind of Akbar. What does this say about the nature of gender, a man creating his feminine opposites because he cannot find them in life?
Rushdie uses this story as a vehicle to explore a woman's life--told largely through the perspectives of men, ironically--in this period of history. However, I wouldn't necessarily call this a work of historical fiction, in the sense that it does not concern itself too much with the details of history except when they serve a purpose. The story is not about the Mughal empire so much as it is set, for a part, in that empire.
While "epic" or "sword and sorcery" fantasy has its place, its success of late has typecasted the genre. In those stories, magic is almost a science, subjected to laws the way we have restricted gravity. We often forget that the definition of fantasy is broader. In this respect, The Enchantress of Florence reminds me of Jonathan Strange Mr. Norrell . It is truly a fantastic adventure and romance just steeped in unrestrained magic, a world in which anything is possible--but not everything is permitted.
In this novel, Rushdie runs two stories parallel to each other: that of Emperor Akbar's court, the emperor's life and philosophy; and the story of a man's heritage, of a lost Mughal princess who travels from Asia to Florence to the New World, then beyond. The boundaries between these two stories--the latter of which takes place in the first one's past--are flimsy, permeable. If you were expecting a linear narrative that reads like a movie novelization, then you a) have not read Salman Rushdie before and b) will not get that.
I might even characterize this story as a fable, for it carries that particular brand of enchantment about it. Romance, yes, that too: the main characters all mediate on the nature of love at one point or another. Cloaked in sixteenth-century philosophical ideas, these ruminations may seem pompous or boring, but I found them intriguing. Akbar struggles with the existence of God, the divine right to rule, whether might truly is the only arbiter of power. We also see a fictionalized Machiavelli, disenchanted with his wife, and like so many men in this story, drawn into the web of enchantment that the eponymous princess weaves.
Descend deeper through these layers, and Rushdie focuses on the nature of power for women in a world dominated by men. How do women exert their influence? Is their beauty, their sexuality, the only way they can ever gain power? In this book, two female characters are essentially imaginary, constructed from the mind of Akbar. What does this say about the nature of gender, a man creating his feminine opposites because he cannot find them in life?
Rushdie uses this story as a vehicle to explore a woman's life--told largely through the perspectives of men, ironically--in this period of history. However, I wouldn't necessarily call this a work of historical fiction, in the sense that it does not concern itself too much with the details of history except when they serve a purpose. The story is not about the Mughal empire so much as it is set, for a part, in that empire.
While "epic" or "sword and sorcery" fantasy has its place, its success of late has typecasted the genre. In those stories, magic is almost a science, subjected to laws the way we have restricted gravity. We often forget that the definition of fantasy is broader. In this respect, The Enchantress of Florence reminds me of Jonathan Strange Mr. Norrell . It is truly a fantastic adventure and romance just steeped in unrestrained magic, a world in which anything is possible--but not everything is permitted.
March 22, 2012
When this book was chosen for my real life bookclub, I was a little nervous about it. I'd never read anything of Salman Rushdie's before, and I wouldn't have chosen this one to start with (if ever). I'll be honest, the premise looks kind of boring.
But then I started reading it. And I was completely surprised by not only how much I liked it, but by how funny it was. Irreverent, and witty, and whimsical and a little weird, with more than a dash of gutter-humor funny that had me giggling like a fiend. At the 45% point, I was ready to call this one a 5-star book. I was loving it.
I loved Akbar, Akbar the Great, the greatness of which must be twice specified in order to merely hint at his glorious gloriousness. Him. I loved his personality, his unpredictability, his mind. I loved how he thought about things... Honestly, it is so rare for a ruler to think about the nature of his (or her) rule in terms other than 1) how to keep it, and 2) how to get more of it. I loved that he thought in the abstract, the philosophical. I vs we. All "I"s are "we"s, not just Royal "we"s. Everyone is part of a larger entity that makes them up: family, friends, community, etc.
We enjoyed his blunt honesty too, in acknowledging that his kids, whom he loves, are royal bastards who will try to usurp his rule.
For the first half. And then it shifted.
Then that yellow-haired guy had to show up and tell his secret that is so momentous that to tell it to the wrong person would cause the listener's death. Dun dun dunnnnnnn! Except it wasn't. The secret was... mundane. A family history that leached almost all the humor and life out of the 2nd half of the book. Not all... but enough.
Suddenly we have this new cast list, and though they try to be interesting, to me they just weren't. They didn't compare to Akbar. Recognizable names, sure, but I wasn't really feeling them despite that. I wanted to get back to "the present" and spend more time with Akbar. He made the story interesting to me. Qara Koz was... not really enchanting me.
Honestly, I don't get her allure - or, to be honest, the allure of any of the other "Oh so beautiful that one look upon her face makes men ready to just keel over and die for her" women mentioned in the story. We have one that's so perfect she's literally imaginary, but doesn't even have the decency to stop existing when her imaginer is away. We have another who is so beautiful that basking in her haughty condescension is considered a luxury, and one who is so amazingly gorgeous that everyone in town's had a share except her husband. But maybe Qara Koz is actually literally enchanting them, as opposed to just being so pretty that men fall down at her feet. I'm a little iffy on that point. That's magical realism for you.
I'm not sure how I felt about this book, overall. I wanted to love it, and for the first half, I did... but then it just got tedious to me. There's the underlying question of a woman's power and influence, but I feel a bit bothered by the fact that every woman in this book either a) had none, b) had a little that was granted by a man, c) obtained it strictly based on her looks, or d) used magic.
Another reason why I loved Akbar... he didn't want a submissive doormat of a wife... he wanted a woman that would actually think for herself and act upon her own will. In fact the main men were like this and valued more than just appearance... but appearance definitely came first and was a huge factor in their relationships with women (aside from whores). They are imperfect, I know... but I do give them credit for at least being somewhat respectable.
To shift gears a little, I will say I quite enjoyed the kind of modern feel to the narration. The story is set in the 16th century, but the language was accessible and straightforward, while at the same time being somehow more. I'm not really sure how to explain it, but it was gorgeous and easy to read and descriptive, and at times really funny, as I mentioned before.
There was also an interesting duality in this story... with the Echo and the Mirror, and the imagined-made-live theme running through both story lines. I thought that this was interesting, but it wasn't enough. There was quite a bit to enjoy in this book. I just wish that the story-within-the-story interested me more. But, in fairness, this isn't one of my favorite things to begin with. I definitely think I'll try another of Rushdie's books though.
But then I started reading it. And I was completely surprised by not only how much I liked it, but by how funny it was. Irreverent, and witty, and whimsical and a little weird, with more than a dash of gutter-humor funny that had me giggling like a fiend. At the 45% point, I was ready to call this one a 5-star book. I was loving it.
I loved Akbar, Akbar the Great, the greatness of which must be twice specified in order to merely hint at his glorious gloriousness. Him. I loved his personality, his unpredictability, his mind. I loved how he thought about things... Honestly, it is so rare for a ruler to think about the nature of his (or her) rule in terms other than 1) how to keep it, and 2) how to get more of it. I loved that he thought in the abstract, the philosophical. I vs we. All "I"s are "we"s, not just Royal "we"s. Everyone is part of a larger entity that makes them up: family, friends, community, etc.
Perhaps the idea of self-as-community was what it meant to be a being in the world, any being; such a being being, after all, inevitably a being among other beings, a part of the beingness of all things."
"...[They] are all bags of selves, bursting with plurality..."I, that is to say "We", loved this. It's interesting, and uniquely worded, and it made me giggle to read it in what, before starting, I assumed would be a seriously dull book.
We enjoyed his blunt honesty too, in acknowledging that his kids, whom he loves, are royal bastards who will try to usurp his rule.
"They were little gods, the despots of the future: born, unfortunately, to rule. He loved them. They would betray him. They were the lights of his life. They would come while he slept. The little assfuckers. He was waiting for their moves."Oh, yes... We loved him. Loved.
For the first half. And then it shifted.
Then that yellow-haired guy had to show up and tell his secret that is so momentous that to tell it to the wrong person would cause the listener's death. Dun dun dunnnnnnn! Except it wasn't. The secret was... mundane. A family history that leached almost all the humor and life out of the 2nd half of the book. Not all... but enough.
Suddenly we have this new cast list, and though they try to be interesting, to me they just weren't. They didn't compare to Akbar. Recognizable names, sure, but I wasn't really feeling them despite that. I wanted to get back to "the present" and spend more time with Akbar. He made the story interesting to me. Qara Koz was... not really enchanting me.
Honestly, I don't get her allure - or, to be honest, the allure of any of the other "Oh so beautiful that one look upon her face makes men ready to just keel over and die for her" women mentioned in the story. We have one that's so perfect she's literally imaginary, but doesn't even have the decency to stop existing when her imaginer is away. We have another who is so beautiful that basking in her haughty condescension is considered a luxury, and one who is so amazingly gorgeous that everyone in town's had a share except her husband. But maybe Qara Koz is actually literally enchanting them, as opposed to just being so pretty that men fall down at her feet. I'm a little iffy on that point. That's magical realism for you.
I'm not sure how I felt about this book, overall. I wanted to love it, and for the first half, I did... but then it just got tedious to me. There's the underlying question of a woman's power and influence, but I feel a bit bothered by the fact that every woman in this book either a) had none, b) had a little that was granted by a man, c) obtained it strictly based on her looks, or d) used magic.
Another reason why I loved Akbar... he didn't want a submissive doormat of a wife... he wanted a woman that would actually think for herself and act upon her own will. In fact the main men were like this and valued more than just appearance... but appearance definitely came first and was a huge factor in their relationships with women (aside from whores). They are imperfect, I know... but I do give them credit for at least being somewhat respectable.
To shift gears a little, I will say I quite enjoyed the kind of modern feel to the narration. The story is set in the 16th century, but the language was accessible and straightforward, while at the same time being somehow more. I'm not really sure how to explain it, but it was gorgeous and easy to read and descriptive, and at times really funny, as I mentioned before.
There was also an interesting duality in this story... with the Echo and the Mirror, and the imagined-made-live theme running through both story lines. I thought that this was interesting, but it wasn't enough. There was quite a bit to enjoy in this book. I just wish that the story-within-the-story interested me more. But, in fairness, this isn't one of my favorite things to begin with. I definitely think I'll try another of Rushdie's books though.
April 8, 2019
Floransa Büyücüsü takip edilmesi zor bir kitap. Hikaye içinde hikaye olan, çok sesli, çok katmanlı, birden fazla merkezi olan, 15.ve 16. yy'ı çerçevesinde gelişen tarihsel olayları dönemlerin getirdiği inançlar,duygular ve kaygılar içerisinde gerçeklik - gerçeküstülük kavramlarını modern roman yapısı içinde sunuyor.
Rushdie'nin dönemlerin linear olmayan anlatımı içinde doğu -batı karşılaştırması bilindik ve kulağa tanıdık gelebilecek öykülere karşı getirmiş olduğu dualist bakış açısını da beraber getiriyor.
Kitap her ne kadar sadece masalsı ya da büyüsel gerçekliği kullandığını okura düşündürse de, üst metin açısından, gerçekliğin keşfini arayan ve bunu masalsı öğelerle son derece zekice bir araya getiren çok başarılı bir kitap.
Sonuç olarak, bu çok katmanlılık ve çokseslilik bazen yorabiliyor. Her şeye rağmen Rushdie'nin romancı olarak dili ve olayları zenginleştirmesine sadece hayranlık duyuyorsunuz.
İyi okumalar,
5/4
Rushdie'nin dönemlerin linear olmayan anlatımı içinde doğu -batı karşılaştırması bilindik ve kulağa tanıdık gelebilecek öykülere karşı getirmiş olduğu dualist bakış açısını da beraber getiriyor.
Kitap her ne kadar sadece masalsı ya da büyüsel gerçekliği kullandığını okura düşündürse de, üst metin açısından, gerçekliğin keşfini arayan ve bunu masalsı öğelerle son derece zekice bir araya getiren çok başarılı bir kitap.
Sonuç olarak, bu çok katmanlılık ve çokseslilik bazen yorabiliyor. Her şeye rağmen Rushdie'nin romancı olarak dili ve olayları zenginleştirmesine sadece hayranlık duyuyorsunuz.
İyi okumalar,
5/4
July 21, 2018
This would have been far better served by being a Silk type novella, an incantation that weaves its charms around us for the duration of one sitting- just long enough for the magic to work, not long enough for anyone to even think of wanting to look behind the curtain. The longer it went on, and the more tied to the reality of the world it became, the less it worked. So much of this could have been left to the readers to dream and imagine afterwards. So many subplots about hookers and pages of rhapsodize about the dark power of women’s beauty could have been cut (the second part especially forced me to turn on my “so wtf is going on THERE, then?” brain). This is a story about the power of stories- I get that unraveling it a little is part of the point, but this book needed to trust that its audience got it about 100 pages sooner than it thought we did.
Gorgeous, gorgeous writing that I would like to have been top on my list to talk about and quote at length might then have taken its proper place. But by the end, even that was too much of a good thing.
What a shame, what a world.
Take it from one who reads dozens of phantasmagoric books of a magical-realism bent and actually *wants* your spell to succeed as much as you do: Less is more.
Gorgeous, gorgeous writing that I would like to have been top on my list to talk about and quote at length might then have taken its proper place. But by the end, even that was too much of a good thing.
What a shame, what a world.
Take it from one who reads dozens of phantasmagoric books of a magical-realism bent and actually *wants* your spell to succeed as much as you do: Less is more.
February 1, 2024
Floransa Büyücüsü çok ciddi, hatta bana kalırsa kendisine kötü bir roman dememizi haklı kılacak sorunları olan bir roman. Öncelikle kitapta Ekber Şah dışında eli yüzü düzgün bir karakter yok, öyle ki anlatıcımız dahil olmak üzere bütün yan karakterler kendilerine biçilen kısıtlı roller üzerine yazılmışlar ve yazar bunun ötesinde derinleştirme çabasına dahi girmemiş. Mogor dell’Amore'ın romandaki tek işlevi hikaye anlatmak mesela, ne bunun için sahip olduğu motivasyon ne de kendisini bu noktaya getiren geçmişi inandırıcı değil bence. Hele öyle kadın karakterler var ki kitabı feminist perspektiften okuduğumuz zaman felaket olduğunu söyleyebiliriz. Romanda zaman ayrılan iki kadın karakter (aslında üç ama ikisini bir sayabiliriz) var ve bunlardan biri Ekber Şah'ın hayalinden hayat bulan bir "ideal kadın" sureti. İdeal kadından kastımız ise Şah'ın istediği zaman gidip beraber olduğu, Şah yokken olanları ona yetiştiren ve saraydaki diğer tüm kadınların nefret ettiği bir karakter. Ya da bize kendi hikayesini yazıyormuş gibi gösterilen Kara Göz'ün de aslında kendisinden beklenenin aksine bir şey yapmadığını görüyoruz hikaye ilerledikçe. Romanda tek "devrimci" kadın karakter Şah'ın halası, o da zaten romanda bir yer tutmuyor.
Bir diğer sorun ise, ki bence daha önemli bu, Floransa Büyücüsü çok açık bir şekilde Batılı okurlar için yazılmış Doğu anlatısı. Elif Shafak sağ olsun biz Türkiye'de alışkınız buna ama Rushdie'nin de bu konuda Shafak'tan aşağı kalır bir yanı yokmuş. Roman boyunca Babürlüler, İran ve Osmanlı'yı kapsayan ve15. yüzyıldan 16. yüzyıla uzanan bir hikayeler topluluğu okuyoruz, ancak bütüne baktığımızda sanki Rushdie bu iki yüzyıllık süreçte bu topraklarda olan önemli olayları önüne almış ve araları da Batılı okurun seveceği, zorlanmadan anlayacağı olaylarla ve karakterlerle doldurmuş gibi. Yalnızca iki boyutlu karakterler değil bunu söylememin sebebi, roman boyunca hikaye bilinçli bir şekilde sarayları hiç terk etmiyor (genelevler hariç). Sadece şahları, sultanları, haremi ve cariyeleri, Doğu deyince Batının tahayyülünde canlanan o renkli ve büyülü dünyayı görüyoruz. Ekber Şah'ın verdiği -gerçek tarihle de uyumlu- kararlar hep Şah'ın kendi iç dünyasına ve sarayda yaşananlara dayandırılıyor ancak Babürlülerin o dönemki etnik yapısı, toplumdaki ayrılıklar, bu olayların daha sonra tarihe etki edebilecek yansımaları tamamem es geçiliyor. Sulandırılmış , renklendirilmiş ve bolca şekerlendirilmiş bir tarihi anlatı kalıyor elimizde. Romanı tamamen kendi içinde tutarlı, gerçek dünyadan bağımsız değerlendirsek bile kocaman krallıkların bahsedildiği böyle bir kitapta halkların sadece arka plandaki figüranlar olarak kalması rahatsız ediyor bir noktadan sonra. Bunun tek istisnası İtalya'da gerçekleşen bir isyan hareketi sanırım, o da ne tesadüftür ki Batıda yaşanıyor.
Peki bu kadar eleştirdiğim bir esere neden 3 yıldız veriyorum? Çünkü -maalesef- Floransa Büyücüsü bütün hatalarına rağmen çok eğlenceli, hızlı okunan, okuru bir anda kendi dünyasına çeken ve bunu edebi anlamda tatmin eden bir dille -çevirmene alkış- yapan bir roman. Rushdie'nin betimlemeleri bir mekanı, sahneyi okurken sıkmadan gerçek kılıyor. Babür sarayının koridorlarında dolaşmak, Ekber Şah ve çevresinin sohbetlerini dinlemek, bir saraydan diğerine savaşlarla dolu bir hikayeyi okumak aynı rengarenk bir Tarsem Singh filmi izlemek gibi keyif veriyor. Floransa Büyücüsü'sü irili ufaklı hikayelerle, mitlerle, masallarla dolu ve bunları okurken çok eğlendiriyor okuru. Puslu Kıtalar Atlası ve Yüzyıllık Yalnızlık benzetmesi yapmış Biron Paşa, benim de aklıma bu kitaplar geldi okurken. Büyülü gerçekçiliğin Hindistan'a çok yakıştığını biliyordum daha önce okuduğum kitaplardan, bir kez daha görmüş oldum böylece. Hatta bu kitap "mitler nasıl ortaya çıkıyor" sorusuna bir cevap oldu benim için. Tarihte gerçekleşmiş olayları böyle bir kurguya oturttuğunuz zaman seneler, asırlar sonra bu olayların nasıl efsaneye, daha büyülü olaylara dönüşebileceğini de anlıyoruz. Floransa Büyücüsü tüm derdi hikaye anlatmak olan bir roman ve Rushdie bunu çok iyi başarmış bence.
Tüm bu övgülerim için bir istisna var, o da romanın sonu. Çünkü bir sonu yok Floransa B��yücüsü'nün. Aceleye getirilmiş, neredeyse yazarı tarafından terk edilmiş bir şekilde bitiyor kitap. Karakterlerin o ana kadar anlatılan zayıf karakteristikleri dahi göz ardı ediliyor ve kitabın geri kalanına hiç yakışmayacak anti-clicmatic, tarihe uygun ancak hikayeye ihanet eden birkaç sayfayla olaylar bağlanıyor. İsterdim ki tarihi anlatının etrafında gezinen, gerçekleri bozmayan ama onu mümkün olduğunca hikayenin yararına büken bir kitap en sonda tarihi tamamen reddetsin ve hikayeye hizmet edecek şaşalı bir son göstersin okura (bknz. Inglourious Basterds). Rushdie bu cesareti gösteremeyince romanın sonu, kitabı bitirdiğimizde damağımızda kalan tat da zayıf kalmış.
Bir açıdan çok sevip bir başkasından sevmediğim, beni bu kadar kesin çizgilerle ortada bırakan çok kitap okumadım daha önce. Rushdie'yle ilgili olumlu bir önyargım vardı, kendisinin düşündüğüm kadar "iyi" bir romancı olmadığını görmek üzücü ancak iyi bir dilbaz olduğunu inkar edemem. Nasıl yazar bazen sadece bir hikaye anlatmak için yazıyorsa okur da zaman zaman bu sebeple okuyacağı bir şeyler arayabiliyor, benim için diğer Rushdie kitapları bu vakitlerin tercihi olacak.
Bir diğer sorun ise, ki bence daha önemli bu, Floransa Büyücüsü çok açık bir şekilde Batılı okurlar için yazılmış Doğu anlatısı. Elif Shafak sağ olsun biz Türkiye'de alışkınız buna ama Rushdie'nin de bu konuda Shafak'tan aşağı kalır bir yanı yokmuş. Roman boyunca Babürlüler, İran ve Osmanlı'yı kapsayan ve15. yüzyıldan 16. yüzyıla uzanan bir hikayeler topluluğu okuyoruz, ancak bütüne baktığımızda sanki Rushdie bu iki yüzyıllık süreçte bu topraklarda olan önemli olayları önüne almış ve araları da Batılı okurun seveceği, zorlanmadan anlayacağı olaylarla ve karakterlerle doldurmuş gibi. Yalnızca iki boyutlu karakterler değil bunu söylememin sebebi, roman boyunca hikaye bilinçli bir şekilde sarayları hiç terk etmiyor (genelevler hariç). Sadece şahları, sultanları, haremi ve cariyeleri, Doğu deyince Batının tahayyülünde canlanan o renkli ve büyülü dünyayı görüyoruz. Ekber Şah'ın verdiği -gerçek tarihle de uyumlu- kararlar hep Şah'ın kendi iç dünyasına ve sarayda yaşananlara dayandırılıyor ancak Babürlülerin o dönemki etnik yapısı, toplumdaki ayrılıklar, bu olayların daha sonra tarihe etki edebilecek yansımaları tamamem es geçiliyor. Sulandırılmış , renklendirilmiş ve bolca şekerlendirilmiş bir tarihi anlatı kalıyor elimizde. Romanı tamamen kendi içinde tutarlı, gerçek dünyadan bağımsız değerlendirsek bile kocaman krallıkların bahsedildiği böyle bir kitapta halkların sadece arka plandaki figüranlar olarak kalması rahatsız ediyor bir noktadan sonra. Bunun tek istisnası İtalya'da gerçekleşen bir isyan hareketi sanırım, o da ne tesadüftür ki Batıda yaşanıyor.
Peki bu kadar eleştirdiğim bir esere neden 3 yıldız veriyorum? Çünkü -maalesef- Floransa Büyücüsü bütün hatalarına rağmen çok eğlenceli, hızlı okunan, okuru bir anda kendi dünyasına çeken ve bunu edebi anlamda tatmin eden bir dille -çevirmene alkış- yapan bir roman. Rushdie'nin betimlemeleri bir mekanı, sahneyi okurken sıkmadan gerçek kılıyor. Babür sarayının koridorlarında dolaşmak, Ekber Şah ve çevresinin sohbetlerini dinlemek, bir saraydan diğerine savaşlarla dolu bir hikayeyi okumak aynı rengarenk bir Tarsem Singh filmi izlemek gibi keyif veriyor. Floransa Büyücüsü'sü irili ufaklı hikayelerle, mitlerle, masallarla dolu ve bunları okurken çok eğlendiriyor okuru. Puslu Kıtalar Atlası ve Yüzyıllık Yalnızlık benzetmesi yapmış Biron Paşa, benim de aklıma bu kitaplar geldi okurken. Büyülü gerçekçiliğin Hindistan'a çok yakıştığını biliyordum daha önce okuduğum kitaplardan, bir kez daha görmüş oldum böylece. Hatta bu kitap "mitler nasıl ortaya çıkıyor" sorusuna bir cevap oldu benim için. Tarihte gerçekleşmiş olayları böyle bir kurguya oturttuğunuz zaman seneler, asırlar sonra bu olayların nasıl efsaneye, daha büyülü olaylara dönüşebileceğini de anlıyoruz. Floransa Büyücüsü tüm derdi hikaye anlatmak olan bir roman ve Rushdie bunu çok iyi başarmış bence.
Tüm bu övgülerim için bir istisna var, o da romanın sonu. Çünkü bir sonu yok Floransa B��yücüsü'nün. Aceleye getirilmiş, neredeyse yazarı tarafından terk edilmiş bir şekilde bitiyor kitap. Karakterlerin o ana kadar anlatılan zayıf karakteristikleri dahi göz ardı ediliyor ve kitabın geri kalanına hiç yakışmayacak anti-clicmatic, tarihe uygun ancak hikayeye ihanet eden birkaç sayfayla olaylar bağlanıyor. İsterdim ki tarihi anlatının etrafında gezinen, gerçekleri bozmayan ama onu mümkün olduğunca hikayenin yararına büken bir kitap en sonda tarihi tamamen reddetsin ve hikayeye hizmet edecek şaşalı bir son göstersin okura (bknz. Inglourious Basterds). Rushdie bu cesareti gösteremeyince romanın sonu, kitabı bitirdiğimizde damağımızda kalan tat da zayıf kalmış.
Bir açıdan çok sevip bir başkasından sevmediğim, beni bu kadar kesin çizgilerle ortada bırakan çok kitap okumadım daha önce. Rushdie'yle ilgili olumlu bir önyargım vardı, kendisinin düşündüğüm kadar "iyi" bir romancı olmadığını görmek üzücü ancak iyi bir dilbaz olduğunu inkar edemem. Nasıl yazar bazen sadece bir hikaye anlatmak için yazıyorsa okur da zaman zaman bu sebeple okuyacağı bir şeyler arayabiliyor, benim için diğer Rushdie kitapları bu vakitlerin tercihi olacak.
January 24, 2011
I will leave plot synopsis to others. I enjoyed his lyricism and way with words. Several times I found myself re-reading or copying down a sentence just to appreciate it's beauty and wisdom. What I enjoyed far less was the very meandering nature of the book; like Russian nesting dolls, there is a story within a story and its hard to see the relevance until the end. With short stories taking the place of a longer, more constructed narrative, it's easy to get lost in the cast of characters. I also dislike his overall depiction of women, which perhaps may represent the time period, but I fear more likely is a reflection of cultural bias. The book suffers from the "Queen or whore" syndrome, which makes it less enjoyable for me. One of the other reviewers summed it up nicely when he wrote, "this is a book of marvels, but not a marvelous book."
July 17, 2008
Reading this is like eating a bowl of creamy ice cream. Luscious words that seem to slide down and enervate but tastefully lingers to remind you it's not as light as you first thought. Reading Rushdie is like a spark of recognition with a fellow traveler and I tip my hat in greeting, to say hello! it was lovely walking with you for awhile, thank you for reminding me what it is to connect with someone, hope to bump into you again further down the road, and may you have a good journey.
June 24, 2025
Salman Rüşdi’den okuduğum dördüncü kitap bu. Öykülerden oluşan “Doğu, Batı”yı saymazsak hepsi şahaneydi. Geceyarısı Çocukları ve Utanç’tan sonra Floransa Büyücüsü de yanıltmadı. Her üçü de bir miktar büyülü gerçekçilik içeren tarihi kurgu tarzında. Böyle sınıflandırınca azımsamışım gibi geliyor. Öyleyse abartayım! Rüşdi sanki bu romanları yazmamış da ilmek ilmek işlemiş, cümlelere uzaktan yakından bakmış, bir eksiltmiş bir artırmış, içine sindirmiş de öyle dizmiş. Okuyucuya, harikulade taşlardan oluşan bir mücevheri boynuna takar gibi romanı okuyup sindirmek kalmış. Benim deneyimim bu işte.
Okuduğum üç romanda Salman Rüşdi’nin asıl meselesinin doğu-batı ikilemi olduğu anlaşılıyor. Geceyarısı Çocukları ve Utanç’ta vurgulanan batı sömürgeciliği, olaylar 1500’lerde geçtiğinden olsa gerek Floransa Büyücüsü’nde yer almamış. Doğuyu temsil eden Hindistan, İran ve Osmanlı’da, Batıyı temsilen İtalya’da sosyal hayat, sanat, kadının toplumsal hayattaki yeri ve dini akımlar arka planda olay akışına yedirilmiş.
Günümüz Hindistan ve çevresinde kurulmuş olan Babür İmparatorluğunun 5. İmparatoru olan Ekber Şah romanda önemli bir yer tutuyor. Onun dışında, Özbek Şeybani Han, Safevi hükümdarı Şah İsmail, Osmanlı Padişahı Yavuz Sultan Selim, Andrea Doria, Amerigo Vespucci, Mediciler, Machiavelli gibi dönemin önemli kişileri romanda bir şekilde yer bulmuş. Yazar bu kişilere romana özel olaylar ve yan hikâyeler kurgulamış olabilir. Kim karışabilir? Tarihi yazanlar hep doğruları mı yazmış?
Yani ben şahsen bir Babür dönemi ressamı olan Daswanth’ın, Floransa Büyücüsünün resmini hayalinden yaptıktan sonra ona âşık olduğuna, kendi eserine bakıp erim erim eridiğine, iyice küçüldükten sonra kendi tablosunun içine kendini hapsettiğine ikna oldum J
Hikâye Hindistan’dan başlayıp İran’a, İstanbul’a, Floransa’ya ve oradan da Amerika kıtasına uzanıp bir dünya turu attırıyor okura. Kitabın ilk yarısında hikâye kişileri ve anlatıcılar karmaşık hale gelebilir. Sabredin derim. İkinci yarısında taşlar yerine oturuyor.
Spoiler!!
Kendisine Mogor dell'Amore diyen bir yabancı, bir İskoç gemisi ile Hindistan’a gelir. Amacı Hükümdar Ekber Şah ile görüşmektir. Ekber Şah yabancıyı şüphe ile karşılar ve hikâyesini anlatmasını ister. Yabancının anlatacağı çok şey vardır. İtalya’da üç arkadaşın çocukluklarından başlar. Aynı zamanda Ekber Şah’ın dedesi, imparatorluğun kurucusu Babür’ün kayıp kız kardeşi Karagöz adlı prensesin kıtaları aşan yolculuğundan. Floransa Büyücüsü bu prensestir.
Okuduğum üç romanda Salman Rüşdi’nin asıl meselesinin doğu-batı ikilemi olduğu anlaşılıyor. Geceyarısı Çocukları ve Utanç’ta vurgulanan batı sömürgeciliği, olaylar 1500’lerde geçtiğinden olsa gerek Floransa Büyücüsü’nde yer almamış. Doğuyu temsil eden Hindistan, İran ve Osmanlı’da, Batıyı temsilen İtalya’da sosyal hayat, sanat, kadının toplumsal hayattaki yeri ve dini akımlar arka planda olay akışına yedirilmiş.
Günümüz Hindistan ve çevresinde kurulmuş olan Babür İmparatorluğunun 5. İmparatoru olan Ekber Şah romanda önemli bir yer tutuyor. Onun dışında, Özbek Şeybani Han, Safevi hükümdarı Şah İsmail, Osmanlı Padişahı Yavuz Sultan Selim, Andrea Doria, Amerigo Vespucci, Mediciler, Machiavelli gibi dönemin önemli kişileri romanda bir şekilde yer bulmuş. Yazar bu kişilere romana özel olaylar ve yan hikâyeler kurgulamış olabilir. Kim karışabilir? Tarihi yazanlar hep doğruları mı yazmış?
Yani ben şahsen bir Babür dönemi ressamı olan Daswanth’ın, Floransa Büyücüsünün resmini hayalinden yaptıktan sonra ona âşık olduğuna, kendi eserine bakıp erim erim eridiğine, iyice küçüldükten sonra kendi tablosunun içine kendini hapsettiğine ikna oldum J
Hikâye Hindistan’dan başlayıp İran’a, İstanbul’a, Floransa’ya ve oradan da Amerika kıtasına uzanıp bir dünya turu attırıyor okura. Kitabın ilk yarısında hikâye kişileri ve anlatıcılar karmaşık hale gelebilir. Sabredin derim. İkinci yarısında taşlar yerine oturuyor.
Spoiler!!
Kendisine Mogor dell'Amore diyen bir yabancı, bir İskoç gemisi ile Hindistan’a gelir. Amacı Hükümdar Ekber Şah ile görüşmektir. Ekber Şah yabancıyı şüphe ile karşılar ve hikâyesini anlatmasını ister. Yabancının anlatacağı çok şey vardır. İtalya’da üç arkadaşın çocukluklarından başlar. Aynı zamanda Ekber Şah’ın dedesi, imparatorluğun kurucusu Babür’ün kayıp kız kardeşi Karagöz adlı prensesin kıtaları aşan yolculuğundan. Floransa Büyücüsü bu prensestir.
May 11, 2018
Yahu aslında hiç bişey anlamadım biliyo musun?
Kitap çok dolu. Benim kapasitemin üzerinde. O seviyeye gelememişim henüz. Öyle hissettim.
Kitap ders kitabı gibi. Bir dönem boyunca inceleye inceleye okumak lazım.
Bana öyle geldi. Öyle hissettim.
Seviye yaşı 40
Kitap çok dolu. Benim kapasitemin üzerinde. O seviyeye gelememişim henüz. Öyle hissettim.
Kitap ders kitabı gibi. Bir dönem boyunca inceleye inceleye okumak lazım.
Bana öyle geldi. Öyle hissettim.
Seviye yaşı 40
August 22, 2016
To me, the enchantress seems like one of the most charming female characters ever. Magical, a bit scary, unforgettable. Her story is totally worth reading.
September 12, 2017
The curse of the human race is not that we are so different from one another, but that we are so alike.
I have an ambivalent relationship with Salman Rushdie – admire his writing/am impatient with his books; appreciate his artistry/sense I wouldn't like him in person – and The Enchantress of Florence was unsurprising in both its engaging craftsmanship and its eyeroll-inducing pretentiousness. Between Midnight's Children and The Satanic Verses, Rushdie has probably already said everything important that he needed to say, so the fault is mine for picking up a book that I knew might slightly disappoint; I'd give this one three and a half stars if I could and am rounding up because the storyline did keep me engaged.
“I am what you might call a man embarked on a quest – a secret quest, what's more – but I must warn you that my secret has a curse upon it, placed there by the most powerful enchantress of the age. Only one man may hear my secret and live, and I would not want to be responsible for your death.”
Lord Hauksbank of That Ilk laughed again, not an ugly laugh this time, a laugh of dispersing clouds and revenant sunshine. “You amuse me, little bird,” he said. “Do you imagine I fear your green-faced witch's curse? I have danced with Baron Samedi on the Day of the Dead and survived his voodoo howls. I will take it most unkindly if you do not tell me everything at once.”
“So be it,” began the stowaway. “There was once an adventurer-prince named Argalia, also called Arcalia, a great warrior who possessed enchanted weapons, and in whose retinue were four terrifying giants, and he had a woman with him, Angelica...”
“Stop,” said Lord Hausbank of That Ilk, clutching at his brow. “You're giving me a headache.” Then, after a moment, “Go on.” “...Angelica, a princess of the blood royal of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane...” “Stop. No, go on.” “...the most beautiful...” “Stop.”
Whereupon Lord Hausbank fell unconscious to the floor.
After meeting the main character Niccolo Vespucci (or Mogor dell'Amore, if you prefer), and learning that the yellow-haired storyteller/magician/pilgrim is not above skulduggery, lies, and assault in the pursuit of some private quest, we watch as he approaches the Mughal palace at Fatehpur Sikri and tricks his way into an audience with the supreme ruler, Akbar the Great. There's a nice bit of tension as we suspect the stranger's motives, but Akbar is no fool: No matter how amused or intrigued he appears to be by the young man's tales, the emperor is wary and assessing; and although it takes several hundred pages of misdirection and tangled timelines to hear the entire story that Vespucci came to relate, Akbar is always one step ahead; ultimately intuiting the truth of Vespucci's personal history before even the young man himself does. There's a bit of Scheherezade to both the fantastical elements to some of Vespucci's stories (I particularly loved the “palace of memories”) and the prolonging of his stay at the palace (despite insider intrigue) until the end of his tale is reached, and the yellow-haired stranger seems to be an avatar of Rushdie himself as the weaver of words who attempts to unite the stories of the East and the West. For that is really the essence of this book: the confluence of the Renaissance as it played out in Florence and the religious reforms and freedom of thought that the historical Akbar the Great introduced to his court in “Hindustan”; all with a fairy-tale-for-grownups atmosphere.
“In the beginning there were three friends,” he said softly. “Niccolò 'il Machia', Agostino Vespucci, and Antonio Argalia. Their boyhood world was a magic wood.”
Enchantress is populated with many historical men – Akbar the Great, Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Andrea Doria, the Medici family, Machiavelli, Amerigo Vespucci – and indeed, there is a long Bibliography included that reflects Rushdie's research for this book. And while I can understand the complaint that the women in this tale are all prostitutes/courtesans, idealised beauties (even Akbar's favourite wife is a figment of his imagination), or shrewish housewives, it would be hard to deny that it was the men in history that had their stories written down; that women were more likely to be the subjects of fantasies and fairy tales (where they were noted at all). And so it is that the Enchantress of Florence herself is a spellbinding beauty who travels with her near-twin (a servant known as “the Mirror” who is always up for a threesome with whatever powerful man her mistress is attempting to enchant; talk about male fantasies), and while the Enchantress is a princess who could be commanding multitudes, it is some magic spell she casts around her own beauty that bends the world to her will. And maybe I should have been offended by that if not for this scene that sees a Medici proving himself immune to the princess' charms, if not her political value, by proposing that she should ally herself with him after her husband's impending murder:
Music struck up. There was to be dancing now. She was to dance a pavana with the assassin of her hopes. “I must think,” she said, and he bowed. “Of course,” he said, “but think quickly, and before you think, you will be brought to my private rooms tonight, so that you may understand what you have to think about.” She stopped dancing and stood facing him. “Madam, please,” he chided her, holding out his hands until she began to step in time once again. “You are a princess of the blood royal of the house of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan. You know how the world works.”
And isn't that how the world worked? Hard to be offended by the dismissive treatment of women in a quasi-realistic historical novel (even if, after reading Joseph Anton, I figure Rushdie doesn't like women too much). The bottom line: There were some really nice passages in this book, an intriguing overall structure (even if the ending was a bit of a let down), an enchanting fairy tale vibe, a blending of history and myth; much to like. On the other hand, there was something a bit self-satisfied about the storyteller-as-creator-of-reality that made me impatient with the author himself. I may not pick up another Rushdie until one comes along that has a general consensus of “must read”; this isn't that.
August 25, 2009
This story has all the ingredients that should make it wonderful : Akbar, one of the most intriguing of Mughal emperors and his mysterious Fatehpur Sikri, Renaissance Florence in all its colorful glory under the Medicis, Machiavelli, Jannisarries, grim Ottoman sultans, epic battles, and even a murder or two. But somehow all these elements fail to gel into a cohesive story. The exotic locales and historical figures are ably rendered in lush, sometimes breathless prose, but they lack character that make us care for them. They are little more than richly caparisoned puppets that mechanically move through the narrative, symbolic articulators of the author's ideas, but of little substance themselves. Which is a pity, since the themes explored --- the power of travel and the imagination, truth and deception, East and West, religious tolerance --- are inherently compelling.
The other thing that strikes me is the treatment of the female characters; they are either whores, concubines or wives, but virtually all of them are defined in terms of their sexual desirability to the men. Even Qara Koz, the titular Enchantress who is described as the most powerful woman in the story, derives her power and security solely from the powerful men that she has affairs with (oh, she is also a secretly a lesbian, but that hardly makes her a feminist paragon, Mr. Rushdie). That and the rather tedious smut and jarring profanities coexist uneasily with the lyrical writing and attempts at magical realism. Finishing this book is like waking up from a dream, which though wonderful in parts, leaves an odd, and slightly distasteful aftertaste.
The other thing that strikes me is the treatment of the female characters; they are either whores, concubines or wives, but virtually all of them are defined in terms of their sexual desirability to the men. Even Qara Koz, the titular Enchantress who is described as the most powerful woman in the story, derives her power and security solely from the powerful men that she has affairs with (oh, she is also a secretly a lesbian, but that hardly makes her a feminist paragon, Mr. Rushdie). That and the rather tedious smut and jarring profanities coexist uneasily with the lyrical writing and attempts at magical realism. Finishing this book is like waking up from a dream, which though wonderful in parts, leaves an odd, and slightly distasteful aftertaste.
June 21, 2023
I really enjoyed this. It was a fad some time ago for authors to try to write their own myths, and this reads just like one, but without the tired half-jog that so many authors attempting this fall into towards the end. Sad, romantic, with just enough reality to it to ground it, and enough magic in it to make it memorable.
My only downside is that Rushdie sure does like to talk about anatomy, a lot. Can you talk about boobs and boners too much? I personally vote yes. I don't have an exact ratio to give you, but this is too much.
CONTENT WARNING:
My only downside is that Rushdie sure does like to talk about anatomy, a lot. Can you talk about boobs and boners too much? I personally vote yes. I don't have an exact ratio to give you, but this is too much.
CONTENT WARNING:
November 8, 2011
My first read for Rushdie …well , I was confused how to rate this book . This does not mean that I hardly liked it.No ,it is just that there were parts deserved 5 starts for me while other parts simply irritated me!!! still ...I do recommend it , and I highly appreciate the work that has been done in this novel, I totally understand the declaration that it took him years to write this one .Even as reader he pushed me searching and thirsty for more about the subject!
"the enchantress of Florence " is a historical novel that jump from a place to place ; Mughal India , Safavid empire of Iran , the Ottoman Empire , Renaissance in Italy ; reaching the New World at the end (?!) - all of this in the sixteenth century , but represented by events and characters (generations) that are separated by half a century .Certainly a beautiful yarn to gather east and west together in a significant point of history , I believe that this quote from the novel : " This may be the curse of human race . Not that we are different from one anther , but we are so alike ." has very much deal of the message of this book .
Other aspects were different philosophical meditations about power , religion , home , love and "self" or as Rushdie said himself " achieve significance as human beings". That woven fabric was done in an amazing way through actual re-drawn historical figures like "Akbar the great" and "Machiavelli" (Surprising/contradicting image to the limit that I need to read the prince to get balance!) . also through fictional characters that linked all the strings together ( I liked that) , one of them is our heroin : the princess (the Mongolic enchantress of Florence) and her love story - One of my irritating issues that I wanted to love her …to admire her journey , but I could not do so !(I was not attracted to any other female character except Akbar's aunt but she faded too soon besides her rebellion was Basically anti-religion ) . BTW , I noticed some reviews accusing the novel of being sexist , is that what annoyed me ? hmmm not sure; considering the time period ; when women influence came from behind curtains . yet I can not put my feelings or annoyment here into solid words !
The novel is very rich in details ; art and aurban took a prominent position in this book , now it will be a dream come true for me to visit " Fatehpur Sikri" that he cleverly drew her prosperity and transformation into city of ghosts ..
Akbar will be always a figure that I will never forget , his interest in religious and philosophical matters , the idea of "House of Worship" was quite interesting (I am still reading about the subject) . this took big part of the book , and I am not sure which of the religious thoughts in the novel were Akbar's or actually Rushdie's !
I have no more to say for the moment , but I like to quote Rushdie :" non-historians think of history as being a collection of facts, whereas actually it's not -- it's a collection of theories about the past. We revise our view of the past all the time, depending on our own present concerns " … an approach that I should always remember ..
N.B
* I enjoyed reading this interview with Rushdie about this novel in 2008 and found it very usefull in understanding the novel Salman Rushdie Spins a Yarn
"the enchantress of Florence " is a historical novel that jump from a place to place ; Mughal India , Safavid empire of Iran , the Ottoman Empire , Renaissance in Italy ; reaching the New World at the end (?!) - all of this in the sixteenth century , but represented by events and characters (generations) that are separated by half a century .Certainly a beautiful yarn to gather east and west together in a significant point of history , I believe that this quote from the novel : " This may be the curse of human race . Not that we are different from one anther , but we are so alike ." has very much deal of the message of this book .
Other aspects were different philosophical meditations about power , religion , home , love and "self" or as Rushdie said himself " achieve significance as human beings". That woven fabric was done in an amazing way through actual re-drawn historical figures like "Akbar the great" and "Machiavelli" (Surprising/contradicting image to the limit that I need to read the prince to get balance!) . also through fictional characters that linked all the strings together ( I liked that) , one of them is our heroin : the princess (the Mongolic enchantress of Florence) and her love story - One of my irritating issues that I wanted to love her …to admire her journey , but I could not do so !(I was not attracted to any other female character except Akbar's aunt but she faded too soon besides her rebellion was Basically anti-religion ) . BTW , I noticed some reviews accusing the novel of being sexist , is that what annoyed me ? hmmm not sure; considering the time period ; when women influence came from behind curtains . yet I can not put my feelings or annoyment here into solid words !
The novel is very rich in details ; art and aurban took a prominent position in this book , now it will be a dream come true for me to visit " Fatehpur Sikri" that he cleverly drew her prosperity and transformation into city of ghosts ..
Akbar will be always a figure that I will never forget , his interest in religious and philosophical matters , the idea of "House of Worship" was quite interesting (I am still reading about the subject) . this took big part of the book , and I am not sure which of the religious thoughts in the novel were Akbar's or actually Rushdie's !
I have no more to say for the moment , but I like to quote Rushdie :" non-historians think of history as being a collection of facts, whereas actually it's not -- it's a collection of theories about the past. We revise our view of the past all the time, depending on our own present concerns " … an approach that I should always remember ..
N.B
* I enjoyed reading this interview with Rushdie about this novel in 2008 and found it very usefull in understanding the novel Salman Rushdie Spins a Yarn
May 13, 2023
This book had so much potential. The first 150 ish pages got me hooked, but the rest of the story became flat. This book would have been so much better if it was a novella! It got confusing at times due to the number of characters and how their names changed as well as the numerous stories within the main story (which weren’t very interesting, except for one)!
October 18, 2014
So far, this book is enjoyable, and well-written as Rushdie always is, but I can't help thinking that it's not as good as some of the others, the ones that I love (Shame, Midnight's Children, the Satanic Verses, and of course Haroun and the Sea of Stories).
I think three things are maybe the difference.
1. The title led me to expect a lot more from the female characters, or rather a lot more from how they are portrayed. There's just the tiniest whiff of women being valuable mostly for being beautiful, and it's hard to know with historical works because of course the context determines a lot of the limitations, but there is now and then a slide into agreement with those ideas on the part of the....narrator? the book? Hard to say.
In any case, quite a few women are prostitutes, sex slaves, multiple wives and spoils of war. Which, I guess, ok. But then, when we see other women (Machiavelli's wife, for example) they're not treated as interesting or valuable. How many times must we be told that she waddles? How many times that Nico doesn't want to sleep with her? That she's angry, that she's bitter? This is an issue, and I don't think it's only the historical context.
2. This book is missing some of the passionate engagement with real issues that's present in so much of Rushdie's other work. Compared with a book like Shame, or even with a book like Haroun, which furiously defends a plurality of voices and value of storytelling, this one feels a little light.
3. Finally, the history. Rushdie did a ton of research for this, there's a bibliography and everything. But I found that I actually wanted a little more magic and a little less realism in my magical realism. Some parts -- the wife who comes into being because she is imagined, the painter who disappears into his own work -- are still the very best of Rushdie. These sections are marvelous. But there are long parts that read like any other work of historical fiction, which is not a genre I typically enjoy nor what I have come to expect from this author.
All in all there was no moment where I said to myself this book is bad, and there were many moments where the writing was beautiful and funny and everything I love about Rushdie. Yet I felt myself dragging, putting the book aside, reading to finish certain parts rather than for the sheer joy of it, and I think the combination of these three things is probably why. Perhaps it's time to re-read one of his other books, to get back into the Rushdie love.
I think three things are maybe the difference.
1. The title led me to expect a lot more from the female characters, or rather a lot more from how they are portrayed. There's just the tiniest whiff of women being valuable mostly for being beautiful, and it's hard to know with historical works because of course the context determines a lot of the limitations, but there is now and then a slide into agreement with those ideas on the part of the....narrator? the book? Hard to say.
In any case, quite a few women are prostitutes, sex slaves, multiple wives and spoils of war. Which, I guess, ok. But then, when we see other women (Machiavelli's wife, for example) they're not treated as interesting or valuable. How many times must we be told that she waddles? How many times that Nico doesn't want to sleep with her? That she's angry, that she's bitter? This is an issue, and I don't think it's only the historical context.
2. This book is missing some of the passionate engagement with real issues that's present in so much of Rushdie's other work. Compared with a book like Shame, or even with a book like Haroun, which furiously defends a plurality of voices and value of storytelling, this one feels a little light.
3. Finally, the history. Rushdie did a ton of research for this, there's a bibliography and everything. But I found that I actually wanted a little more magic and a little less realism in my magical realism. Some parts -- the wife who comes into being because she is imagined, the painter who disappears into his own work -- are still the very best of Rushdie. These sections are marvelous. But there are long parts that read like any other work of historical fiction, which is not a genre I typically enjoy nor what I have come to expect from this author.
All in all there was no moment where I said to myself this book is bad, and there were many moments where the writing was beautiful and funny and everything I love about Rushdie. Yet I felt myself dragging, putting the book aside, reading to finish certain parts rather than for the sheer joy of it, and I think the combination of these three things is probably why. Perhaps it's time to re-read one of his other books, to get back into the Rushdie love.
September 22, 2016
This book is very bland. I feel like I'm supposed to be having these deep epiphanies and I'm not thinking deeply enough or something . Absolutely nothing is coming to me.
I've had a major disconnect with the author, and I'm just not sure why. I really enjoyed the storyline until the book jumped in time. Then I completely lost my equilibrium.
I've had a major disconnect with the author, and I'm just not sure why. I really enjoyed the storyline until the book jumped in time. Then I completely lost my equilibrium.
October 15, 2013
Verujem da većina nas nikada nije čula za Akbara Velikog, mogulskog vladara koji je vladao u isto vreme kad i slavna engleska kraljica Elizabeta, i to podjednako velikom i moćnom imperijom, samo na drugoj strani globusa. Možda u školskom programu za učenje istorije zaista nema vremena da se spomenu baš svi veliki svetski vladari, ali eurocentrično poimanje istorijskih događaja koje nam se usađuje u glavu dovodi do krajnje iskrivljenog shvatanja poretka u svetu i propušta da sve deliće svetske istorije stavi u jedan širi, međusobno isprepletan kontekst koji bi služio boljem razumevanju današnjice i sveta oko nas. Nije džabe Orvel rekao: "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." Srećom, tu je književnost.
Rušdi nam donosi zanimljivu interpretaciju vladavine Akbara Velikog, „prosvećenog despota“ koji je stvorio stabilnu, prosperitetnu i uređenu imperiju, sa glavnim ciljem o postizanju apsolutne verske tolerancije. Jedna anegdota kaže da je, u želji da napokon pomiri verske vođe u svojoj zemlji, Akbar Veliki organizovao neku vrstu „okruglog stola“, čija je tema bila da se jednom za svagda dokaže kako su sve religije zapravo različiti načini ispovedanja jednog te istog Boga. Kako se rasprava rasplamsavala, Akbar je shvatao da do nekog univerzalnog pomirenja i shvatanja neće doći, te je razočaran napustio raspravu. To je istorijska anegdota, a slične događaje opisuje i Rušdi u ovoj knjizi.
Zaplet je naizgleda jednostavan: mladi, plavokosi stranac iz Firence, koji sebe zaziva Mogor del Amore, dolazi na Akbarov dvor sa tvrdnjom da je ni više ni manje nego ujak Akbara Velikog, budući da je sin zaboravljene mogulske princeze Karakez (Crnooke). Zaintrigiran strančevom pričom, kao i sudbinom princeze koja je izbrisana iz istorije porodične loze zbog toga što je odabrala slobodu odlučivanja o sopstvenom životu, Akbar odlučuje da stranca ostavi u životu i sasluša njegovu priču, kao što je nekada Šah Džahan slušao Šeherezadu.
Kroz priču mladog Mogora del Amorea, selimo se iz mogulskog carstva u Firencu Medičija, u kojoj stasava Nikolo Makijaveli, i pratimo sudbine njegova dva prijatelja, Aga Vespučija, za koga je Firenca čitav svet, i ceo život, i Nina Argalije, koji postaje turski janičar i najbolji vojskovođa svog vremena, nagrađen za godine verne službe Otomanskoj imperiji zarobljenom princezom Karakez, i progonom iz carstva. Vešto preplićući njihove priče, učimo o dodirima istoka i zapada kroz istoriju, o političkim, vojnim i čak ličnim odlukama ljudi koji su oblikovali tadašnji svet.
Međutim, iako se knjiga bavi ozbiljnim temama, iako je Rušdi obavio neverovatan istraživački rad na polju istorije mogulskog carstva i Firence u 16-tom veku, tok pripovedanja se na trenutke gubi, davi u digresijama opisa što glavnih, što sporednih junaka (i njihovih unutrašnjih monologa), a sama tema gubi na ozbiljnosti preteranim uplivom magijskog realizma na kom bi i Markes pozavideo. Stoga mislim da ova knjiga nije na nivou Rušdijevog prethodnog romana, „Klovn Šalimar“, koji naprosto briljantno i tragično obrađuje (nažalost, i dalje) aktuelan problem kašmirskog problema u Indiji.
Indija ostaje Rušdijeva Muza, i nadam se da nikada neće prestati da to bude, jer nam pisci poput njega pribižavaju svet o kome malo imamo prilike da učimo i slušamo. Zbog toga častim knjigu sa 4 zvezdice, iako ima nekih manjkavosti, ali i pored toga je štivo u kome se može uživati na više nivoa. Neko će pratiti tok pripovedanja na nivou radnje, i biće mu baš zanimljivi svi ti šareni likovi koji se inate i zaljubljuju i svađaju, a neko će se potruditi da shvati da je istorija sveta organska celina u kojoj je sve povezano i međusobno poticano kroz vreme i prostor, i o kojoj nikad ne možemo prestati da učimo.
Rušdi nam donosi zanimljivu interpretaciju vladavine Akbara Velikog, „prosvećenog despota“ koji je stvorio stabilnu, prosperitetnu i uređenu imperiju, sa glavnim ciljem o postizanju apsolutne verske tolerancije. Jedna anegdota kaže da je, u želji da napokon pomiri verske vođe u svojoj zemlji, Akbar Veliki organizovao neku vrstu „okruglog stola“, čija je tema bila da se jednom za svagda dokaže kako su sve religije zapravo različiti načini ispovedanja jednog te istog Boga. Kako se rasprava rasplamsavala, Akbar je shvatao da do nekog univerzalnog pomirenja i shvatanja neće doći, te je razočaran napustio raspravu. To je istorijska anegdota, a slične događaje opisuje i Rušdi u ovoj knjizi.
Zaplet je naizgleda jednostavan: mladi, plavokosi stranac iz Firence, koji sebe zaziva Mogor del Amore, dolazi na Akbarov dvor sa tvrdnjom da je ni više ni manje nego ujak Akbara Velikog, budući da je sin zaboravljene mogulske princeze Karakez (Crnooke). Zaintrigiran strančevom pričom, kao i sudbinom princeze koja je izbrisana iz istorije porodične loze zbog toga što je odabrala slobodu odlučivanja o sopstvenom životu, Akbar odlučuje da stranca ostavi u životu i sasluša njegovu priču, kao što je nekada Šah Džahan slušao Šeherezadu.
Kroz priču mladog Mogora del Amorea, selimo se iz mogulskog carstva u Firencu Medičija, u kojoj stasava Nikolo Makijaveli, i pratimo sudbine njegova dva prijatelja, Aga Vespučija, za koga je Firenca čitav svet, i ceo život, i Nina Argalije, koji postaje turski janičar i najbolji vojskovođa svog vremena, nagrađen za godine verne službe Otomanskoj imperiji zarobljenom princezom Karakez, i progonom iz carstva. Vešto preplićući njihove priče, učimo o dodirima istoka i zapada kroz istoriju, o političkim, vojnim i čak ličnim odlukama ljudi koji su oblikovali tadašnji svet.
Međutim, iako se knjiga bavi ozbiljnim temama, iako je Rušdi obavio neverovatan istraživački rad na polju istorije mogulskog carstva i Firence u 16-tom veku, tok pripovedanja se na trenutke gubi, davi u digresijama opisa što glavnih, što sporednih junaka (i njihovih unutrašnjih monologa), a sama tema gubi na ozbiljnosti preteranim uplivom magijskog realizma na kom bi i Markes pozavideo. Stoga mislim da ova knjiga nije na nivou Rušdijevog prethodnog romana, „Klovn Šalimar“, koji naprosto briljantno i tragično obrađuje (nažalost, i dalje) aktuelan problem kašmirskog problema u Indiji.
Indija ostaje Rušdijeva Muza, i nadam se da nikada neće prestati da to bude, jer nam pisci poput njega pribižavaju svet o kome malo imamo prilike da učimo i slušamo. Zbog toga častim knjigu sa 4 zvezdice, iako ima nekih manjkavosti, ali i pored toga je štivo u kome se može uživati na više nivoa. Neko će pratiti tok pripovedanja na nivou radnje, i biće mu baš zanimljivi svi ti šareni likovi koji se inate i zaljubljuju i svađaju, a neko će se potruditi da shvati da je istorija sveta organska celina u kojoj je sve povezano i međusobno poticano kroz vreme i prostor, i o kojoj nikad ne možemo prestati da učimo.
June 22, 2025
Bana kalırsa kitabın ruhuna en uygun düşen ifade henüz başında belirtilen “Aslına bakarsan, bu sevgisiz dünyada rüyalara dalıp gitmek belki de uyanıklığa yeğdir.” cümlesi olabilir. Düşlerin ve hayallerin ağzımıza çaldığı bir parmak bal, gerçeklerin dilimizde bıraktığı kekremsi tadı silip atabilir. Kapılıp gidecekleri epik bir masalı dinlemeye davet ediyor, yazar okurlarını.
Bir arsız, hırsız, sahtekarın hikayesiyle karşı karşıya olduğumuzu düşündüm ilk önce. Diyardan diyara gidebilen, kılıktan kılığa girebilen, çok dilli, çok yüzlü esrarengiz bir kahraman. Açık denizlerden, Hint okyanusuna oradan Babür hanedanlığına kadar uzanan bir yolculuğa çıkan, tatlı ve sivri dili ile şahın yanına kadar sokulan bir adam. Onunla birlikte hayallerle gerçeklerin arasındaki sınırların belirsizleştiği egzotik bir dünyaya a��ılan kapıların hemen önündeyiz.
Romanda; geçtiği döneme koşut olarak özellikle dogmatik düşüncelerin sorgulanması, mutlak otoritenin aşındırılması ile hayat ve ölüm mukayesesine ilişkin tartışmalar zihin açıcı bir işlev görüyor. Bir zamanlar çok güçlü olan Hint, İngiliz, İspanyol ve Portekizlileri eleştirmekten geri durulmuyor. İngilizleri fırsat buldukça yerin dibine sokmaktan büyük keyif alınıyor. Çocuk vergisi gibi insanlık tarihinin en tuhaf uygulamalarından biri etraflıca anlatılıyor. Tabi meşhur “Prens”in yazılışına dair de malumat sahibi olunuyor.
Yazar; Binbir gece masallarını andıran bir havada aktarılan kıtaları aşan romanında okuru hipnotize eden komutlar veriyor. Tarihe yön veren büyük savaşlardan, insanı göklere çıkaran büyük aşklara, saray entrikalarından unutulmaz kaçışlara kadar birbiriyle örüntülü hikayeleri zihinlere nakşediyor.
Kitabın çok büyük bir emeğin ürünü olduğunu sonuna vardığınızda daha net bir şekilde anlıyor; uzun bir seyahatin tatlı yorgunluğunu atmaya çalışan yolcular gibi hissediyorsunuz. Sonrasında kendinizi uykuya bırakıp rüyalara dalmak ister bir halde buluyorsunuz.
Bir arsız, hırsız, sahtekarın hikayesiyle karşı karşıya olduğumuzu düşündüm ilk önce. Diyardan diyara gidebilen, kılıktan kılığa girebilen, çok dilli, çok yüzlü esrarengiz bir kahraman. Açık denizlerden, Hint okyanusuna oradan Babür hanedanlığına kadar uzanan bir yolculuğa çıkan, tatlı ve sivri dili ile şahın yanına kadar sokulan bir adam. Onunla birlikte hayallerle gerçeklerin arasındaki sınırların belirsizleştiği egzotik bir dünyaya a��ılan kapıların hemen önündeyiz.
Romanda; geçtiği döneme koşut olarak özellikle dogmatik düşüncelerin sorgulanması, mutlak otoritenin aşındırılması ile hayat ve ölüm mukayesesine ilişkin tartışmalar zihin açıcı bir işlev görüyor. Bir zamanlar çok güçlü olan Hint, İngiliz, İspanyol ve Portekizlileri eleştirmekten geri durulmuyor. İngilizleri fırsat buldukça yerin dibine sokmaktan büyük keyif alınıyor. Çocuk vergisi gibi insanlık tarihinin en tuhaf uygulamalarından biri etraflıca anlatılıyor. Tabi meşhur “Prens”in yazılışına dair de malumat sahibi olunuyor.
Yazar; Binbir gece masallarını andıran bir havada aktarılan kıtaları aşan romanında okuru hipnotize eden komutlar veriyor. Tarihe yön veren büyük savaşlardan, insanı göklere çıkaran büyük aşklara, saray entrikalarından unutulmaz kaçışlara kadar birbiriyle örüntülü hikayeleri zihinlere nakşediyor.
Kitabın çok büyük bir emeğin ürünü olduğunu sonuna vardığınızda daha net bir şekilde anlıyor; uzun bir seyahatin tatlı yorgunluğunu atmaya çalışan yolcular gibi hissediyorsunuz. Sonrasında kendinizi uykuya bırakıp rüyalara dalmak ister bir halde buluyorsunuz.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,269 reviews