Scan barcode
superdydy's review against another edition
2.0
I really liked the parts where he recounted the Italian's story, but the parts in India killed me. I just don't like his writing style. But I will be reading more about old Italian families.
letitiaharmon's review against another edition
3.0
Not my favorite among Rushdie's works. The richness of the story and the depth of the symbolism are certainly still there, but it lacks the intricate word play for which I fell in love with Rushdie. The long lines of illiteration were missing, as was an overall sense of the clever, witty, and sharp that is so enjoyable despite the serious nature of Rushdie's fiction.
line_so_fine's review against another edition
3.0
It was good, but it never completely hooked me in. There was something about the language and the structure of the plot that distanced me somewhat from the characters, so I wasn't completely enthralled. Still, it was solid, and interesting, and I would recommend it overall. I had to appreciate Rushdie's writing on a technical level. I am making this sound more tedious than it was. Really, it was good.
prufrog's review against another edition
2.0
A reader unfamiliar with Rushdie's writing style should avoid making this their first book by him. I learned it the hard way. Having read very little by Rushdie before stumbling across this, i found this book mildly interesting and majorly boring. The first 100 pages or so tried to establish the setting and were intriguing to be very frank.
The story went to trash for me as soon as Mogor del'amore starting telling the story of Qara Koz, who is his mother according to what he has been told. But she isn't. The reader goes through the ordeal of reading confusing history, unnecessary enchantment of whole towns, the uselessness of Akbar to come to the icky conclusion of the story that is incest.
This story establishes Akbar as a useless, good for nothing, dazed by important questions such as whether he is an 'i' or a 'we', in love with women created from his imagination king. I would give the character some credit but he didn't redeem himself in my eyes at all, till the very end. Nothing has made me dislike Akbar like this other than the Indian daily soap opera Jodhaa Akbar. That shit is annoying.
Qara Koz- the Enchantress is another such character. All her actions are driven by only one reason-selfishness. It is hard to like her and her enchantments make her all the more frustrating.
Their could be layers to the story that I did not understand and would be grateful if someone explained them to me, but on the surface and in the first (very irritated) reading of the book, it did not appeal.
Points to Rushdie's brilliant writing style and I am not giving up on him as an author, yet. I believe that this could be one of his weak works and I fervently hope it is. I am giving him some benefit of doubt.
The story went to trash for me as soon as Mogor del'amore starting telling the story of Qara Koz, who is his mother according to what he has been told. But she isn't. The reader goes through the ordeal of reading confusing history, unnecessary enchantment of whole towns, the uselessness of Akbar to come to the icky conclusion of the story that is incest.
This story establishes Akbar as a useless, good for nothing, dazed by important questions such as whether he is an 'i' or a 'we', in love with women created from his imagination king. I would give the character some credit but he didn't redeem himself in my eyes at all, till the very end. Nothing has made me dislike Akbar like this other than the Indian daily soap opera Jodhaa Akbar. That shit is annoying.
Qara Koz- the Enchantress is another such character. All her actions are driven by only one reason-selfishness. It is hard to like her and her enchantments make her all the more frustrating.
Their could be layers to the story that I did not understand and would be grateful if someone explained them to me, but on the surface and in the first (very irritated) reading of the book, it did not appeal.
Points to Rushdie's brilliant writing style and I am not giving up on him as an author, yet. I believe that this could be one of his weak works and I fervently hope it is. I am giving him some benefit of doubt.
lalalena's review against another edition
5.0
There's just something about the way Rushdie writes that engrosses me. His prose is evocative and the story compelling. [Insert "enchanted" pun here.]
bookchasm's review against another edition
3.0
Try as I might, I could not get into this book. I give it three stars for the writing, which I loved. Strong beginning, but I quickly lost interest and only finished it because i kept hoping for more.
roshnara's review against another edition
3.0
When you're reading this book, you are swept away by Qara Koz, her beauty, and her mesmerizing eyes. You are one of a crowd of people bewitched by her presence. And like all such people, when she leaves, you are left to wonder what just happened. Rushdie is a masterful artist, weaving magic with words, and the prose kept me hooked, but story wise, I don't know what to make of this book. I applaud Angelica 1 for staying true to her heart, being an explorer, daring to venture where she wasn't supposed to and all that, I do. And hey, she had Angelica 2 when homosexuality was a thing of the witches, that takes guts! But I didn't like the way that all she had to do was blink and the world fell at her feet. I didn't like that the magic she used was just hinted at. I wish she was stronger in general, more rounded, and not just a pretty face using said face to get what she wanted.
Even so, in typical Rushdie style, kudos to the writing. I'd still suggest giving this one a skip and picking up one of his stronger ones.
Even so, in typical Rushdie style, kudos to the writing. I'd still suggest giving this one a skip and picking up one of his stronger ones.
books_lover42's review against another edition
3.0
This was my first novel by Salman Rushdie and I was excited to read it as I have heard a lot of wonderful things about his work. I am however at a loss to describe this book. Parts of it were fascinating, with delicate, beautifully interwoven layers that unravel slowly to show the connections through time and place but alas, other parts seemed to confuse me and seemed disjointed?
I found it a bit frustrating that the females characters were either figments of imagination or else held power by virtue of their intense sexuality and hence desirability. However, perhaps Rushdie is showcasing the role of a woman for that time period and how women used their power to exert influence over the men? There were so many layers of this novel that perhaps deserve more discussion (which I would recommend readers to read other reviewers who wrote beautiful, in-depth reviews of this work).
Rushie mused about religion, the "self" and contemplated many things for the time and place which were appropriate. I'm not sure exactly why their was a bibliography however I suppose he wanted to ensure that readers appreciate the historical content while also appreciating the fiction that weaved the story together?
There are far better reviews than mine. As my first, Rushdie book I would recommend this book and more importanatly, plan on reading more of Rushdie.
I found it a bit frustrating that the females characters were either figments of imagination or else held power by virtue of their intense sexuality and hence desirability. However, perhaps Rushdie is showcasing the role of a woman for that time period and how women used their power to exert influence over the men? There were so many layers of this novel that perhaps deserve more discussion (which I would recommend readers to read other reviewers who wrote beautiful, in-depth reviews of this work).
Rushie mused about religion, the "self" and contemplated many things for the time and place which were appropriate. I'm not sure exactly why their was a bibliography however I suppose he wanted to ensure that readers appreciate the historical content while also appreciating the fiction that weaved the story together?
There are far better reviews than mine. As my first, Rushdie book I would recommend this book and more importanatly, plan on reading more of Rushdie.
rekhainbc's review against another edition
2.0
There is a good story in there, and Akbar's court is a rich source of alternative history, so is Florence. Rushdie's storytelling is fun, but there's lots of places in the book where I found myself flipping furiously waiting for Rushdie to get back on point.
rdreading9's review against another edition
3.0
I enjoyed this book cover to cover. Machiavelli to Akbar what's not to love. hahahhahahahha. but it was hard to rate. Against Rushdie's catalog of books it's 3 stars, which is what I'm rating it against. But up against all contemporary lit i'd give it 4 1/2 stars.