Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.6 AVERAGE
3.6 AVERAGE
This book was lot funnier than I remember Rushdie typically being, and I liked the characters more than I usually like Rushdie characters, but it went on too long. And magical realism - if that's what you can call his style - just isn't my cup of tea. *Sips cup of tea*. I think I'm finally okay with that.
This review should in no way diminish his reputation for brilliance.
This review should in no way diminish his reputation for brilliance.
This is my first Rushdie 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
There is Seinfeld and Myanmar (Aung San Simeon Kyi) and Jedi and Bob Dylan and Krypton and Caesar and ping pong and Frankenstein and Werner Herzog and the Vagina Monologues and Nurse Ratched and Don Corleone and Monty Python and Barack Obama and Nine Inch Nails and Gatsby and the Odyssey AND MORE.
I'm totally enamored. Took about 20 pages to get used to his slow, wordy style and then I fell head over heels into the story he expertly twisted from real events/places into a lovely, timely tale.
There are some beautiful guts at the heart of this story, told by "René" the screenwriter. I wasn't sure at times if I was reading true observations or his idealized versions of the characters, and I didn't care. I was happily along for the ride. Startled at the thorough detail of histories of cinema, myths, literature, music- and of course the bold comparisons to the 2016 election: Batwoman vs. the Joker.
This was an excellent pairing to HRC's What Happened.
There is Seinfeld and Myanmar (Aung San Simeon Kyi) and Jedi and Bob Dylan and Krypton and Caesar and ping pong and Frankenstein and Werner Herzog and the Vagina Monologues and Nurse Ratched and Don Corleone and Monty Python and Barack Obama and Nine Inch Nails and Gatsby and the Odyssey AND MORE.
I'm totally enamored. Took about 20 pages to get used to his slow, wordy style and then I fell head over heels into the story he expertly twisted from real events/places into a lovely, timely tale.
There are some beautiful guts at the heart of this story, told by "René" the screenwriter. I wasn't sure at times if I was reading true observations or his idealized versions of the characters, and I didn't care. I was happily along for the ride. Startled at the thorough detail of histories of cinema, myths, literature, music- and of course the bold comparisons to the 2016 election: Batwoman vs. the Joker.
This was an excellent pairing to HRC's What Happened.
I got an ARC from NetGalley and Random House a couple of months ago, for which I am very grateful, but I hadn't gotten around to being in the right mood to tackle a Salman Rushdie novel.
At about 400 pages, I would call The Golden House a sweeping tragedy, spanning the entirety of the Obama presidency as well as covering flashbacks from decades before. At the heart of the novel, which is possibly the most post-truth-y work of fiction currently on the market, is the self-styled Golden family. The patriarch, Nero, and his three sons, Petya, Apu, and D have recreated themselves upon their move to America. They arrive in 2008 in the great New York City, which allows them the anonymity that comes with big cities. Our guide into their mysterious lives is their new neighbor, a young man who we may call Rene.
"The family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets is the source of all our discontents."
Through Rene's eyes we discover the secrets that made this family run away from the city which they never name and the secrets that they continue to harbor and nurture even while in New York. But much like in real life, secrets have a way of finding their way to the surface. In this case, with tragic consequences.
The events, mostly, are self-brought by the patriarch, which makes for a much more compelling story and tragedy than if they were spurious. Trying to guess and discover the various mysteries kept me turning the pages.
At the center of the novel's themes is that of identity. What is identity? Is it narrowly defined? Do we need to define it? Is there just one identity? Can we make our own identity and if so, what is real? What is truth? These are all pertinent questions for our day and age, drawn very much from the current political climate. In a world of fake news, what is reality? As Rushdie writes: "The question is, can I lie better than the truth?"
Despite what other reviewers have said, I don't think Rushdie has an answer or is trying to push his particular opinion on us. His point is that identity is massive, and maybe we can't never know it completely. He writes as Rene's voice: "We are icebergs. I don't mean that we are cold, only that we are mostly under the surface, and the part of us that is hidden can sink the Titanic."
Some have complained about the heavy political slant of this book, but in this reviewer's humble opinion, fiction is supposed to be informed, inspired by reality. That is what makes fiction so compelling; that we can recognize ourselves, our world, our lives in the words of a fictional story.
Despite the devastating events in the book, one gets the sense that Rushdie is seeking to right wrongs, to create a story where the "bad" guys do get what they deserve in the end, even if relatively innocent bystanders are dragged into the mud too because this is a tragedy. "Look out, you will reap what you sow. You will reap what you sow."
Of course, this is a book of flawed people, the only characters worth reading about, and what was terrifying in reading about such imperfect, morally gray, people was what Rene expressed as a realization that "there was no safe space, that the monster was always at the gates, and a little of the monster was within us too, we were the monsters we had always feared."
There's also some slight hope, both in the ending which I will not spoil, and in the writing. Things don't necessarily have to be the way they've always been, Rushdie seems to say. "It was the way of the world, I thought, and maybe it was, but the world is a bad place, you should look for a better world than the one we have made."
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The prose is beautiful, as you'd expect from an author as acclaimed as Salman Rushdie, the scope of the story is massive yet handled deftly, the plot and characters are compelling, and the story leaves you thinking long after you've finished reading.
I took a star off for pacing, the book could have perhaps been about 30 pages shorter which would have increased the sense of impending doom you get while reading the first part. It took a while setting the stage, introducing the characters, and that made the first part not as readable as the other two, but it was not that big of a problem.
There are many cultural references, both to pop culture and the classics, many of which might require extra research. I would have appreciated some footnotes for that so I didn't have to go into Google to look up a reference I felt I needed to fully grasp a paragraph, which took me out of the book for a moment and made for a less cohesive reading experience.
The juxtaposition of the political, and to a degree the social, unraveling of America with the downward spiral of the Golden family was beautifully done.
Thanks again to NetGalley and Random House for the ARC given to me in exchange for my honest review.
At about 400 pages, I would call The Golden House a sweeping tragedy, spanning the entirety of the Obama presidency as well as covering flashbacks from decades before. At the heart of the novel, which is possibly the most post-truth-y work of fiction currently on the market, is the self-styled Golden family. The patriarch, Nero, and his three sons, Petya, Apu, and D have recreated themselves upon their move to America. They arrive in 2008 in the great New York City, which allows them the anonymity that comes with big cities. Our guide into their mysterious lives is their new neighbor, a young man who we may call Rene.
"The family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets is the source of all our discontents."
Through Rene's eyes we discover the secrets that made this family run away from the city which they never name and the secrets that they continue to harbor and nurture even while in New York. But much like in real life, secrets have a way of finding their way to the surface. In this case, with tragic consequences.
The events, mostly, are self-brought by the patriarch, which makes for a much more compelling story and tragedy than if they were spurious. Trying to guess and discover the various mysteries kept me turning the pages.
At the center of the novel's themes is that of identity. What is identity? Is it narrowly defined? Do we need to define it? Is there just one identity? Can we make our own identity and if so, what is real? What is truth? These are all pertinent questions for our day and age, drawn very much from the current political climate. In a world of fake news, what is reality? As Rushdie writes: "The question is, can I lie better than the truth?"
Despite what other reviewers have said, I don't think Rushdie has an answer or is trying to push his particular opinion on us. His point is that identity is massive, and maybe we can't never know it completely. He writes as Rene's voice: "We are icebergs. I don't mean that we are cold, only that we are mostly under the surface, and the part of us that is hidden can sink the Titanic."
Some have complained about the heavy political slant of this book, but in this reviewer's humble opinion, fiction is supposed to be informed, inspired by reality. That is what makes fiction so compelling; that we can recognize ourselves, our world, our lives in the words of a fictional story.
Despite the devastating events in the book, one gets the sense that Rushdie is seeking to right wrongs, to create a story where the "bad" guys do get what they deserve in the end, even if relatively innocent bystanders are dragged into the mud too because this is a tragedy. "Look out, you will reap what you sow. You will reap what you sow."
Of course, this is a book of flawed people, the only characters worth reading about, and what was terrifying in reading about such imperfect, morally gray, people was what Rene expressed as a realization that "there was no safe space, that the monster was always at the gates, and a little of the monster was within us too, we were the monsters we had always feared."
There's also some slight hope, both in the ending which I will not spoil, and in the writing. Things don't necessarily have to be the way they've always been, Rushdie seems to say. "It was the way of the world, I thought, and maybe it was, but the world is a bad place, you should look for a better world than the one we have made."
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The prose is beautiful, as you'd expect from an author as acclaimed as Salman Rushdie, the scope of the story is massive yet handled deftly, the plot and characters are compelling, and the story leaves you thinking long after you've finished reading.
I took a star off for pacing, the book could have perhaps been about 30 pages shorter which would have increased the sense of impending doom you get while reading the first part. It took a while setting the stage, introducing the characters, and that made the first part not as readable as the other two, but it was not that big of a problem.
There are many cultural references, both to pop culture and the classics, many of which might require extra research. I would have appreciated some footnotes for that so I didn't have to go into Google to look up a reference I felt I needed to fully grasp a paragraph, which took me out of the book for a moment and made for a less cohesive reading experience.
The juxtaposition of the political, and to a degree the social, unraveling of America with the downward spiral of the Golden family was beautifully done.
Thanks again to NetGalley and Random House for the ARC given to me in exchange for my honest review.
I so wanted to LOVE this book. Having read Midnights Children, a personal favorite of mine, I have just realized that I prefer Rushdie's magical realism over this departure. There were so many gorgeous writing themes and touches - truly owing to Rushdie's genius and true writing style - but I got lost by the time the plot really took off. This book was a true character study and that is what propels the plot until around 60-70% when things start happening with more frequency. I stayed through till the end, but on my own, I'm not sure I would have. There were some great character pictures, I loved D especially, but there was not as much momentum as I would have liked.
That being said, if you enjoy the plots that are more focused on characters and seeing them from many angles, AND great writing that challenges the line between fact and fiction, you may like this.
Disclaimer: I received this book in exchange for an honest review from Netgalley
That being said, if you enjoy the plots that are more focused on characters and seeing them from many angles, AND great writing that challenges the line between fact and fiction, you may like this.
Disclaimer: I received this book in exchange for an honest review from Netgalley
I have been eager to write some sort of review/blurb of this novel, but after reading other peoples' reviews, I am left more confused as to what I actually thought of this novel. The Golden House is the first novel I have read of Rushdies, and it tells the story of the mysterious and wealthy Golden family, who move into a small, private neighborhood in New York City. The lives of each member of the Golden family are documented by René, who is a filmmaker, and becomes fascinated with figuring out their story. René embeds himself with the Goldens, and chronicles the rise and fall of this curious family. As the story progresses, Rushdie injects details of contemporary society, from the election of Obama in 2008, to present times. While I read, I questioned these overt references to current events, and whether these elements of satire was even relevant or necessary to the story. After completing the novel, I feel that while they had some value, these details also just served to make the novel more intellectual and preach-y than it already was (due to René's privileged and at times, annoyingly self-aware (whiney), style of narration). While the narration got on my nerves, I was fascinated with the story of the Golden's, and I may have appreciated this story more if it were more focused on their story, rather than other peripheral events in our narrators life (possibly a omniscient third person narration would have been more enjoyable.. but who knows). I did enjoy Rushdie's writing style in general though, and I'd be interested to check out some of his more well-known works.
The Golden House tells the story of the Golden family and their life in the US during the Obama years. It's a very entertaining book and had a very tragic story. Salman Rushdie's famous magical realism peeps through every once in a while, though it is not very often. It is a tragedy and the story of a man's sins coming back to bite him. I really enjoyed the sequences about Bombay and the Goldens' old life there, as an Indian who has heard all these stories over the years.
Whenever I buy a new Rushdie, I’m always a bit scared as I feel that he is an inconsistent author. Sometimes I think his books are absolute masterpieces and sometimes I find them dull. Thankfully Rushdie continues the winning streak with his last book Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights and manages to top that with The Golden House.
The Golden House encapsulates a lot of themes which are common in Rushdie’s novels, mainly migration, Indian culture and politics, however Rushdie does things a bit differently and disguises the narrative as a family saga, something which he has touched upon, especially in Shame . For starters The Golden House is a departure from his trademark magical realism and is grounded in reality. Secondly the family saga concerns migrants.
The family in question are the Goldens, originally a family from Bombay, they emigrate to New York once the mother is killed and arrive on the eve of Obama’s election in 2008. As this is a Rushdie novel there are passages dealing with identity and fitting in within society. The Goldens all give themselves Roman names, which they abbreviate in order to fit within society.
Rushdie tackles the book through an interesting angle for the narrator is Rene, an aspiring film student of emigrant parents who is amused by the Goldens and decides to create a documentary/film about them. It is worth noting that Rushdie channels a lot of his usual pop culture references through Rene, mostly both mainstream and obscure films, kudos for name dropping Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives. As to be expected the family falls apart when the background history of the Goldens is revealed.
I see The Goldens as a representation as the last nine years of American history. The ‘Golden’ age of Obama triumphing over George W. Bush and the good times that followed The point when Trump (here represented as The Joker – a psycho clown) trumping of Obama happens is when the Goldens are in trouble. At this point Rushdie even includes a short nod to Brexit as part of ‘the world gone to pieces’ theme.
However it is not all doom. Both Rene and The Goldens share a garden, a guess that’s paradise and despite all the events the garden is not affected and Rene does lead a good life in the end, I assume that this is Rushdie’s way of saying that through perseverance the US may not go the way of the Goldens and the paradise/garden may be intact.
As I stated before the theme of identity is also important in The Golden House. The third child, who goes by the name of D is unsure of his sex and there are lengthy digressions in the notion of gender, not to mention that his partner works in the Museum of Identity, which help enrich D’s knowledge of the subject and decide on his transition. Incidentally this is the second time I have read about the dilemma that the Hijira goes through and I’ll say that Rushdie does a better job.
Personally I thought this novel was great. It was an insightful read, kept me hooked and this time, the pop references didn’t bother me. I did enjoy this angrier version of Rushdie and hopefully it is kept up with future novels.
The Golden House encapsulates a lot of themes which are common in Rushdie’s novels, mainly migration, Indian culture and politics, however Rushdie does things a bit differently and disguises the narrative as a family saga, something which he has touched upon, especially in Shame . For starters The Golden House is a departure from his trademark magical realism and is grounded in reality. Secondly the family saga concerns migrants.
The family in question are the Goldens, originally a family from Bombay, they emigrate to New York once the mother is killed and arrive on the eve of Obama’s election in 2008. As this is a Rushdie novel there are passages dealing with identity and fitting in within society. The Goldens all give themselves Roman names, which they abbreviate in order to fit within society.
Rushdie tackles the book through an interesting angle for the narrator is Rene, an aspiring film student of emigrant parents who is amused by the Goldens and decides to create a documentary/film about them. It is worth noting that Rushdie channels a lot of his usual pop culture references through Rene, mostly both mainstream and obscure films, kudos for name dropping Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives. As to be expected the family falls apart when the background history of the Goldens is revealed.
I see The Goldens as a representation as the last nine years of American history. The ‘Golden’ age of Obama triumphing over George W. Bush and the good times that followed The point when Trump (here represented as The Joker – a psycho clown) trumping of Obama happens is when the Goldens are in trouble. At this point Rushdie even includes a short nod to Brexit as part of ‘the world gone to pieces’ theme.
However it is not all doom. Both Rene and The Goldens share a garden, a guess that’s paradise and despite all the events the garden is not affected and Rene does lead a good life in the end, I assume that this is Rushdie’s way of saying that through perseverance the US may not go the way of the Goldens and the paradise/garden may be intact.
As I stated before the theme of identity is also important in The Golden House. The third child, who goes by the name of D is unsure of his sex and there are lengthy digressions in the notion of gender, not to mention that his partner works in the Museum of Identity, which help enrich D’s knowledge of the subject and decide on his transition. Incidentally this is the second time I have read about the dilemma that the Hijira goes through and I’ll say that Rushdie does a better job.
Personally I thought this novel was great. It was an insightful read, kept me hooked and this time, the pop references didn’t bother me. I did enjoy this angrier version of Rushdie and hopefully it is kept up with future novels.
This is the first Salman Rushdie book I have ever read; I received the book through SantaThing.
It wasn't for me. There are a few good pieces in it, like The Joker vs Batwoman 2016 election comparisons (the rant about the Joker is spot-on) and the discussions about gender options.
However the rest of the story is just a convoluted story part Gatsby, part Lear, part Godfather Bollywood movie about a family I never care about told by a narrator I never empathize with. It was fantastical and nutty. There are SO many art, pop culture, mythical, historical, movie, music, literary, political etc references my head spun. I am sure this is a kind of political satire or commentary, but that is not my genre.
Grandiose, but not me.
It wasn't for me. There are a few good pieces in it, like The Joker vs Batwoman 2016 election comparisons (the rant about the Joker is spot-on) and the discussions about gender options.
However the rest of the story is just a convoluted story part Gatsby, part Lear, part Godfather Bollywood movie about a family I never care about told by a narrator I never empathize with. It was fantastical and nutty. There are SO many art, pop culture, mythical, historical, movie, music, literary, political etc references my head spun. I am sure this is a kind of political satire or commentary, but that is not my genre.
Grandiose, but not me.