The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

British Indian novelist born 1947.

Fiction
Grimus
Midnight's Children
Shame
The Satanic Verses
The Moor's Last Sigh
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Fury
Shalimar the Clown
The Enchantress of Florence
Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights
The Golden House
Quichotte
Victory City

Collections
East, West
Mirrorwork: 50 Years of Indian Writing 1947-1997
The Best American Short Stories 2008

Children’s Book
Haroun and the Sea of Stories
Luka and the Fire of Life

Essays and Nonfiction
The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey
In Good Faith (Granta 1990)
Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991
The Wizard of Oz
Mohandas Gandhi Time 13 April 1998
Imagine There is No Heaven, Letters to the Six Billionth World Citizen by Uitgeverij Podium (16 October 1999)
Step Across This Line: Collected Nonfiction 1992-2002
The East is Blue
A Fine Pickle The Guardian (28 February 2009)
In the South Booktrack (7 February 2012)
Joseph Anton: A Memoir

Very easy to interview on a radio.

Are you going to do the book list Wendy?

April will be the 40th anniversary of Midnight's Children. I love this novel and will reread it next month.

As much as I loved Midnight’s Children and Shame I didn’t love Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights, The Golden House or Quichotte. I used to list Rushdie among my favorite authors, but he isn’t, even though MC is one of my very favorite novels.

I need to read more of his novels. I wonder if the older novels like The Moors Last Sigh, The Ground Beneath her Feet aren’t better than his recent novels.

The only two novels of his I haven’t read are Enchantress of Florence and Shalimar the Clown.

I think his output is patchy. The ones I like are Satanic Verses, Midnight’s Children, Shame, Two Years, Moors Last Sigh (which is very similar to midnight’s children) and Quichotte.

The rest range from ok (golden house) to awful (fury, the ground beneath her feet)

The Ground Beneath her Feet was indeed awful!

Enchantress of Florence and Shalimar the Clown though were both wonderful.

I can only read one Rushdie a year so in 2021 I’ll get round to reading one of those

I liked all of them except Fury and to a lesser extent The Ground Beneath her Feet and Grimus. I have not read the children's stories or most of the non-fiction. I thought we had this discussion before but can't remember which thread it was in.

Of his fiction, I’ve read all but Enchantress of Florence- and it’s been a love/meh relationship. My favorite is Midnight’s Children so far.

I’ve only read Midnight’s Children, which I enjoyed very much. The Satanic Verses has been on my TBR for a long, long time but not something I’ve prioritized. It’s one of those books I’d probably pick up if I stumbled across it in a used bookstore or while browsing at a library, but so far our paths have not crossed.

I think the old novels are better than the new like the Golden House and Quixote

I ought to reread the early novels - I loved Midnight's Children and Shame at the time, and also enjoyed The Satanic Verses. The next tier would probably include Shalimar the Clown, The Enchantress of Florence and The Moor's Last Sigh.

Hugh wrote: "I ought to reread the early novels - I loved Midnight's Children and Shame at the time, and also enjoyed The Satanic Verses. The next tier would probably include Shalimar the Clown, The Enchantress..."

My feelings about Rushdie's individual works track Hugh's here. in Golden House and Quichotte I felt like he was an older, melancholic version of his younger self from the Midnight's Children days. In these last two books I felt like his penchant to write his women as beautiful, young and talented, and then fall in love with them has gotten worse. As a result his female characters feel flat and less interesting to me. I wish he'd get over that.....

I haven't read his Joseph Anton: A Memoir, just because I'm generally not drawn to the memoir genre, and this one is so long. Can anyone share their feelings about it?

I can’t believe I still haven’t read The Satanic Verses. When it first came out I knew nothing about Islam; I think the more the reader knows about the the story of Christ, the more that reader gets out of The Gospel According to Jesus Christ and similarly the more the reader knows the story of Mohammad and the birth of Islam the more we get out of The Satanic Verses.

The Moors Last Sigh was one I though I would probably enjoy as much as Shame and Midnight’s Children. It doesn’t sound like many here liked The Ground Beneath her Feet.

We did discuss Rushdie before, Hugh. I started this thread because of the 40th anniversary of the Booker and Booker of Booker winning Midnight’s Children.

Joseph Anton I found a bit pretentious, not least the fact it was written in the third person about Joseph Anton (the name he used while in hiding), and a bit too much about his tangled love life.

WndyJW wrote: "I can’t believe I still haven’t read The Satanic Verses. When it first came out I knew nothing about Islam; I think the more the reader knows about the the story of Christ, the more that reader get..."

For some strange reason A lot of people think that The Satanic Verses is a big daunting intellectual novel. It will help if you do a bit of research on what the satanic verses and a quick reading of book of Exodus will help as well.

Yes this is a book about faith and it's different manifestations and the cultural problems that immigrants face (as is a common theme in all Rushdie's books) but at it's heart it is also a tender father/son story as well.

I was deciding between Satanic Verses and Midnight’s Children at 1am this morning. I fell asleep before deciding on a book.

Paul wrote: "Joseph Anton I found a bit pretentious, not least the fact it was written in the third person about Joseph Anton (the name he used while in hiding), and a bit too much about his tangled love life."

That's what I was afraid of.

My review reads....

"How many memoirs do you know where the reader likes the memoirist less at the end that at the beginning" - a rheteroical question asked by the narrator in Zia Haider Rahman's "In the Light of What We Know".

The obvious retort - "Have you read Rushdie's Joseph Anton?"

Salman Rushdie has moved to Substack (whatever that is) and said his new novel will be published there.

https://salmanrushdie.substack.com/p/...

Which I suspect ends my completist reading of his novels unless there is eventually a print copy.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...

Victory City is released February 7th! Rushdie is hit or miss for me, but I’ll preorder to show support after that horrific attack.

A link to the Pen America discussion of Victory City with Margaret Atwood and Neil Gaiman, including readings from the novel.
I think it might be only be viewable for two weeks from February 9th, but I hope not.

https://youtu.be/fib82CJ0XIk

I just finished Victory City and I loved it. This isn’t as good as Midnight’s Children, how could it be, but this feels like a book written by the author of that brilliant classic. I think this will be considered one of his very best.
If he never writes another novel he will end his writing career on a high note.

I loved the magic realism-just enough, not too much, loved the epic feel of it, loved his language, his humor, his historical lessons. I loved the setting. I loved Pampa Kampana. I expect to see this on award lists.

I guess a Booker nomination will happen then!

Btw would you be able to update the post with his bibliography 🙂?

Robert wrote: "I guess a Booker nomination will happen then!

Btw would you be able to update the post with his bibliography 🙂?"


Done!

I see Rushdie's also waded into the debate over the proposed editing of Roald Dahl's work to make it more palatable,

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...

I'm dropping Victory City at page 100 in my ebook reader. It simply does not engage me at all. The narrative feels totally random.

I am deeply ambivalent about Rushdie. There is a condescension towards non English Indian writing which feels both elitist and wrong. I will give Victory City a go though my expectations are low.

Alwynne wrote: "I see Rushdie's also waded into the debate over the proposed editing of Roald Dahl's work to make it more palatable,

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en......"

I'm not sure how this is censorship. The copyright holder has free reign to make edits and alterations, which is what is occurring here. It sounds like the (unstated) concern is a discerning reading public that may render the original unreadable or unsellable.

I work in a multi racial school and as much as I like The Twits, I always skip the chapter when Dahl says that they speak in a ‘weird African language’ (Maltese itself being one) - I think some things should be tweaked

WndyJW wrote: "I just finished Victory City and I loved it. This isn’t as good as Midnight’s Children, how could it be, but this feels like a book written by the author of that brilliant classic. I think this wil..."
I agree. I loved it too and expect it to be nominated for awards.

David wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I see Rushdie's also waded into the debate over the proposed editing of Roald Dahl's work to make it more palatable,

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en......"

I'm not sure that having the legal right to edit a text automatically makes any alterations outside the realms of censorship. Not that I much care about Dahl, he's known for his classist, racist, and other unpleasant attitudes, many of which are clearly represented in his fiction. And I'd be happy to see it simply fade in popularity but as you suggest he's been a major money spinner for publishers and copyright holders for years so sure they're desperate to find a way to keep that going.

I read that article about editing Royal Dahl and I agree racism and sexism should be removed for children’s books, but how is “enormous” better than “fat”? Fat people know they’re fat so calling them enormous instead of fat hardly seems an improvement. Either take at fat as a negative attribute or leave it alone and give it as much attention as the descriptor “thin”. And who exactly is offended by “ugly”? I use ugly to describe people who are hateful, bigoted, mean, etc, regardless of what they look like.

It’s a can of worms. Should Laura Ingalls Wilder books be edited to take out the bigotry towards Native Americans? I don’t know how I feel about that, so that’s not a rhetorical question.

I don’t know the specifics of Dahl’s estate, but typically when an author dies their intellectual property rights are put into a trust, administered at the direction of a trustee. The trustee’s sole duty is to preserve the trust’s assets. In the case of a writer like Dahl, the way to preserve assets is to keep the books in circulation. If that requires making alterations to new editions, so be it. The biggest risk is not making changes, allowing the books to fall out of print, and facing the wrath of unhappy beneficiaries.

This is why I say that charges of censorship may be misleading.

I don’t think of Rushdie as an Indian author, I think of him as a British Indian writer like Ishiguro is a British Japanese author. They embrace both their British identity and their heritage it seems to me, but maybe I haven’t given it enough thought. I don’t think I could strongly defend the way I view them.

This is that sticky question of separation of work and artist which I confess makes me uncomfortable. I love Midnight’s Children, I love A House for Mr Biswas, I love Gabriel García Márquez, all of these authors have unsavory attitudes about women and/or don’t write women characters that are complex humans with agency.

David wrote: "I don’t know the specifics of Dahl’s estate, but typically when an author dies their intellectual property rights are put into a trust, administered at the direction of a trustee. The trustee’s sol..."

Good points, David.

WndyJW wrote: "I read that article about editing Royal Dahl and I agree racism and sexism should be removed for children’s books, but how is “enormous” better than “fat”? Fat people know they’re fat so calling th..."

This is also a very good point. Thinking of the recent AP Stylebook efforts that caused such a stir. The French as example.

David wrote: "If that requires making alterations to new editions, so be it."

What about keeping the texts as they were published and including a contextualizing introduction, foreword or something similar? One would get a critical look at the past while preserving it, but also a trace of contemporary outlooks for a future reader, who will certainly wonder what on earth we were doing now.

Or why not just change them. Can’t quite get what the fuss is about. Books are always being edited. Maybe it’s because I read mostly in translation but I would expect a translation to be edited to reflect modern sensibilities. There’s nothing sacred about the text in Roald Dahl books - indeed the only sacred book that matters is the one that is most continually being re-translated and re-interpreted (admittedly with help from the author’s spiritual manifestation).

endrju wrote: "What about keeping the texts as they were published and including a contextualizing introduction, foreword or something similar?"

That might work for adult books. I think these decisions are made less for artistic reasons and more looking at what will people continue to buy. Sometimes with data and focus groups, but often just guesswork.

Philip Pullman’s take was to leave the books unchanged - precisely so modern readers will realise how anachronistic they are and not read them, and read more diverse books being produced by modern authors.

Which makes sense if this was some grand censorship council making these changes. But it isn’t - it’s the estate / Netflix (seems some debate who) and their aim is, as David points out, precisely the opposite of Pullman’s.

Paul wrote: "Or why not just change them. Can’t quite get what the fuss is about. Books are always being edited. Maybe it’s because I read mostly in translation but I would expect a translation to be edited to ..."

The slippery slope to Bowdlerizing.

Edits approved by the author are one thing but I get a little twitchy when they’re made without the author’s involvement. Because they’re dead, for instance. Maybe they could present it as a new translation… “The Twits by Roald Dahl, translated for a contemporary audience by the Roald Dahl estate.”

“The Twits by Roald Dahl, translated for a contemporary audience by the Roald Dahl estate.”

I like that a lot Lee. I agree with endrju and I agree Paul, but I think the age group the book is written for matters: in children’s books racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ language should be edited so that children who read on their own aren’t absorbing bigotry. Books for adults should be left alone.

In a perfect world we could leave the original language and parents would read with their kids and discuss what is wrong and why, but not all parents have the time or, sadly, the interest in reading with their kids so bigotry is unaddressed. I much prefer an edited Dahl book in school and public libraries to the removal of Dahl books from libraries.

The grey area for me is young teens. At what age do we edit out archaic bigoted depictions?

Editing out objectionable depictions of “the other” is a slippery slope, but that just means we must be more mindful and vigilant about where editing for the right reasons doesn’t become censorship for the wrong reasons.

I love your heart, WndyJ, but I don’t believe there are any “right reasons” for censorship.

It isn’t censorship though, it is editing. Censorship would be if someone else imposed it. Here the copyright owner is doing it which is the nearest to the author. And as David pointed out it is entirely commercially not morally driven - they want to sell more books, including of course the free publicity they are getting from all of this!

Paul wrote: "It isn’t censorship though, it is editing. Censorship would be if someone else imposed it. Here the copyright owner is doing it which is the nearest to the author. And as David pointed out it is en..."

So presumably by that token would be fine in those parts of America where, to take one example, LGBTQ+ communities are considered an abomination to produce copies of books with potentially offending elements such as gay parents edited out as long as the copyright holder agrees?

Paul wrote: Censorship would be if someone else imposed it. Here the copyright owner is doing it which is the nearest to the author."

If the copyright owner is not the author (dead or alive) then any changes made without the author's consent is censorship regardless of whether done within the copyright legal limits.

Vesna wrote: "Paul wrote: Censorship would be if someone else imposed it. Here the copyright owner is doing it which is the nearest to the author."

If the copyright owner is not the author (dead or alive) then ..."

I agree Vesna, there's no guarantee that the inheritors of an estate which includes rights to intellectual property share the values of those whose work they've inherited. I have homophobic relatives who could potentially inherit my work and agree to edit out attitudes/opinions that go against their beliefs, admittedly I've only published one book, the rest are chapters in collections and/or journal articles/conference papers.

Phyllis wrote: "I love your heart, WndyJ, but I don’t belive there are any “right reasons” for censorship."

Agree Phyllis.