Scan barcode
shanshantwigg's review against another edition
just not enjoying the writing style
mizzan's review against another edition
1.0
I am a terrible person who cannot understand this book and got lost in the long paragraphs that lasted pages ... I felt dumb, so I stopped. Whoops.
itsmeashleygee's review against another edition
2.0
This book asked a lot of questions about a post-Trump America, but didn’t answer any of them. That would be okay, except that the asking felt heavy handed and frankly, depressing. This book is rich in symbols and meaning, but I don’t enjoy that when the plot and characters are a dumpster fire of sadness and irredeemable sins.
benjiox's review against another edition
4.0
Your favourite writer isn't as good as Salman Rushdie. 😍
christymaurer's review against another edition
3.0
What I love about Rushdie's other books is the mysticism. The magic. That was missing here. There were many beautiful ideas, interesting thoughts, and compelling passages, but they didn't gel. The running backstory was the Obama years, followed by the 2016 election. While I share Rushdie's contempt for trump, that part would've made more sense in essays or something. I didn't feel it added to the story. Maybe even a bit gratuitous. The main plot I guess was weakened by the side plots rather than being enhanced.
jdybs's review against another edition
4.0
Wow. Really excellent political satire told through a dramatic story. At times a little run-on, but generally perfect, intelligent writing. I listened to the recorded version, which was read very, very well, adding to the drama. Highly recommend.
xennicole's review against another edition
2.0
I was excited when I started this book in August, now it’s mid-October, and I am plowing through it – as in I am fast-reading/skimming because I am bored but so closed to finish. I realized that on my Kindle, my “time left in book” was turned off and then disappointed by how much was left.
Rushdie who I always like in principle but then I start reading I realize why I am still skeptical of his writing outside of “The Satanic Verses.” The writing in “The Golden House,” is bloated due to the complete fullness of elitism, pop culture and literature references that people with Masters and Doctorates or who are autodidactic will know. I am surprised that only a few references I have had to stop and look up. Rushdie mentions Stephen Colbert just after a sentence referencing P.G. Wodehouse.
“The Golden House,” is a Trumpian, Gatsbyian and Mythican story. It feels like Rushdie threw everything into this account including the kitchen sink and that is where it gets bogs down. Every sentence could be majestic by itself, and then he continues long paragraphs to which the writing lost in the magnitude of the 400 pages.
The story is about a family with the patriarch deciding to relocate to NYC and change their names to Roman gods for himself and his three sons. About the lies, fables, and truth they choose to tell. Joseph Campbell would be proud of the anti-hero arch that happens. Fitzgerald, if he would be alive today would either love or hate the work compared to his tightly written story (with is flaws). Fitzgerald would be happy with just being recognized.
As Rushdie is the author, I can't tell if he is writing in the moment because it feels like it or that he is writing about himself and about his time in America in the past twenty years. I can’t tell where the narrator because the author or the author becomes the narrator. Is he looking at his life or the life of Democracy to its death, much like Rome? I don't know.
Thanks to NetGalley for a copy of this ARC.
Rushdie who I always like in principle but then I start reading I realize why I am still skeptical of his writing outside of “The Satanic Verses.” The writing in “The Golden House,” is bloated due to the complete fullness of elitism, pop culture and literature references that people with Masters and Doctorates or who are autodidactic will know. I am surprised that only a few references I have had to stop and look up. Rushdie mentions Stephen Colbert just after a sentence referencing P.G. Wodehouse.
“The Golden House,” is a Trumpian, Gatsbyian and Mythican story. It feels like Rushdie threw everything into this account including the kitchen sink and that is where it gets bogs down. Every sentence could be majestic by itself, and then he continues long paragraphs to which the writing lost in the magnitude of the 400 pages.
The story is about a family with the patriarch deciding to relocate to NYC and change their names to Roman gods for himself and his three sons. About the lies, fables, and truth they choose to tell. Joseph Campbell would be proud of the anti-hero arch that happens. Fitzgerald, if he would be alive today would either love or hate the work compared to his tightly written story (with is flaws). Fitzgerald would be happy with just being recognized.
As Rushdie is the author, I can't tell if he is writing in the moment because it feels like it or that he is writing about himself and about his time in America in the past twenty years. I can’t tell where the narrator because the author or the author becomes the narrator. Is he looking at his life or the life of Democracy to its death, much like Rome? I don't know.
Thanks to NetGalley for a copy of this ARC.
lulucares's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
carenp's review against another edition
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
bookworm42's review against another edition
5.0
This book was brilliant, such an amazing commentary of the United States' political situation right now.