Scan barcode
whiskystar's review
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
alisonjfields's review against another edition
3.0
This is a solid read, a great story and a biting satire on current affairs that would have been infinitely improved if Rushdie had found a better Point of View delivery than his unctuous asshole narrator who sounds exactly like he wandered in from one of the Jonathans' (Lethem/Franzen) worst novels to namedrop compulsively, bloviate about his own excellent taste, smoke magical herb and objectify women.
jellie23's review against another edition
2.75
Absolutely filled to the brim with references and tangents. Rushdie is talented but it wasn’t for me. Read as more of a book on Rene’s every exhausting thought and opinions as opposed to really anything about the Goldens.
alex_reader's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
bsmorris's review against another edition
3.0
I had a hard time with the slow start of this book. I’m going to try to finish it some other time.
alison_marie's review against another edition
2.0
"...I learned the final lesson, the learning of which separates us from innocence. 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, and no matter what beauty enfolded us, no matter how lucky we were in life or money or family or talent or love, at the end of the road, the fire was burning, and would consume us all."
Rushdie's prose is dense and lovely, but I didn't find any of the characters or the story itself compelling.
**I received this book as a Goodreads First Read**
Rushdie's prose is dense and lovely, but I didn't find any of the characters or the story itself compelling.
**I received this book as a Goodreads First Read**
aleffert's review against another edition
4.0
Picked this up because I went to see Rushdie do a reading from it. He's very charming in person. This book however is less charming. Rushdie is too good to write a bad book, but this story of rich people trying to transform themselves into different rich people really didn't do anything for me. It was interesting to see Rushdie work out his thoughts about gender through a sympathetically portrayed trans character. He tries to get at a fundamental thematic question which he hits you over the head with: "Is it possible for a man to be a good man when he is also a bad man?" But like, shrug? Sure?
olicooper's review against another edition
2.0
You can’t rush Rushdie. If you do, you’re missing it. I didn’t rush reading through The Golden House, but I also didn’t feel the need to. There was not too much that was pulling me back in. There is much time spent on characters, without really developing the character. These parts were used more or less as a way of introducing Rushdie’s running commentary on current events (which I did enjoy! They just didn’t make much for character or plot development).
If you removed all references to Greek and Roman mythology, literature, film, you can probably cut out a third of the book. That isn’t to say I disliked them all, only to say I got tired of reading so many of them.
I thought the narration was interesting. Rene at first acts much like Nick does in the Great Gatsby, a participant, but a distant one. He watches the “Goldens” and is mesmerized by them, yearning to learn their story. He arguably gets a bit more involved than Nick ever was able in the Great Gatsby.
And as for the Trump in the room, he makes his appearance, if only as an excuse for Rushdie attack the “fictionalized” villain that terrorizes the city, readying to terrorize us all. The characters or Trump, Clinton, and other players in the 2016 election, don’t really add anything to the plot, but allow the narrator a little time to vent his frustrations at America willingly voting for a monster to be king.
Is this book going to stand the test of time, probably not. It is all very timely, but not timeless. Even though this may not be one of my favorites of his, I am always ready to read. The way he weaves various issues, themes, motifs, etc. into his stories. I’m sure Rushdie’s thoughts on identity politics, gender politics, political correctness, censorship, etc. won’t sit well with everyone, but they are great discussions to have.
If you removed all references to Greek and Roman mythology, literature, film, you can probably cut out a third of the book. That isn’t to say I disliked them all, only to say I got tired of reading so many of them.
I thought the narration was interesting. Rene at first acts much like Nick does in the Great Gatsby, a participant, but a distant one. He watches the “Goldens” and is mesmerized by them, yearning to learn their story. He arguably gets a bit more involved than Nick ever was able in the Great Gatsby.
And as for the Trump in the room, he makes his appearance, if only as an excuse for Rushdie attack the “fictionalized” villain that terrorizes the city, readying to terrorize us all. The characters or Trump, Clinton, and other players in the 2016 election, don’t really add anything to the plot, but allow the narrator a little time to vent his frustrations at America willingly voting for a monster to be king.
Is this book going to stand the test of time, probably not. It is all very timely, but not timeless. Even though this may not be one of my favorites of his, I am always ready to read. The way he weaves various issues, themes, motifs, etc. into his stories. I’m sure Rushdie’s thoughts on identity politics, gender politics, political correctness, censorship, etc. won’t sit well with everyone, but they are great discussions to have.