Scan barcode
jengiuffre's review against another edition
2.0
I started out liking this book, but am just not in the mood for it anymore. It has seemed like a chore trying to finish it. I wouldn't say it is bad, but I just can't focus on such ramblings and all the names with 2 toddlers at hand!
jessrock's review against another edition
5.0
I freely admit that I'm giving this book too many stars because the writing is just that beautiful. Parts of the book are slow going and the story is not always as compelling as it could be. But the writing!
The book flows back and forth between the early 1500s, when a mysterious Italian man appears in an Eastern city and enchants that city's king with his personality and his story-telling, and several generations before, when an ancestor of the king was abducted from the city and traveled to Persia and Italy with her servant, a mirror image of herself. The two stories begin to blend together as people in the king's court become obsessed with the Hidden Princess and as the Hidden Princess's consorts are revealed to have direct connections to the mysterious stranger. The king begins to question how much he can trust the stranger, and whether it's more important to seek truth or creativity. The whole thing feels like a waking dream. Did I mention it's absolutely gorgeous to read?
The book flows back and forth between the early 1500s, when a mysterious Italian man appears in an Eastern city and enchants that city's king with his personality and his story-telling, and several generations before, when an ancestor of the king was abducted from the city and traveled to Persia and Italy with her servant, a mirror image of herself. The two stories begin to blend together as people in the king's court become obsessed with the Hidden Princess and as the Hidden Princess's consorts are revealed to have direct connections to the mysterious stranger. The king begins to question how much he can trust the stranger, and whether it's more important to seek truth or creativity. The whole thing feels like a waking dream. Did I mention it's absolutely gorgeous to read?
bellatora's review against another edition
2.0
I'm surprised with the hatred I feel towards this book. I mean, it's Salman frickin' Rushdie, right? Isn't he some kind of literary god? I'm going to have to read his other books to see, because this one was trash.
I've read sexist books before. There are plenty of them out there, but usually I can glide over the sexist bits because overall the plot/characters/writing are good enough that I choose to ignore the fact that the women are horribly written (looking at you, Robert Jordan). But in this book I cared not a whit about any character, the plot was leaden and the writing was so stilted and musty I thought for a bit it had to be a translated book, despite the fact that I know Rushdie writes in English. Basically, every woman in this is either an insecure shrew (Machiavelli's wife, Akbar's wives) or an empty vessel that men project their sexual fantasies on to. The Enchantress herself is basically powered by hotness. Her magic is her beauty. The female servants in the book are literally their mistress' echo (Gulbadan's servant) or mirror (the enchantress' servant) thus devoiding them of the little personality that the other women get. The enchantress (whose second husband names her Angelique, a name she decides to share with her mirror/servant) decides to fulfill the fantasy that Budweiser ads promise in commercials, namely a threesome with hot, willing twins. Of course, there's never any jealousy between the enchantress and the mirror over the second husband, nor is the mirror ever shown to care that her mistress basically whores her out to the second husband. That would require them to be presented as human, when really the women in this book are ciphers for male fantasies. I mean, for goodness sake, the Mughal's favorite wife (who was an actual historical person) is a figment of her husband's imagination (who, despite this, is able to give him great sex). And don't even get me started on the part of the book when all the women in the Mughal's city became petty and quarrelsome with each other, but were cured when they were ordered to walk around naked all day and realized they were all flawed and human (uh...yeah...). The worst part of it all was that I got the feeling that Rushdie considered this book romantic. No wonder this guy has been married and divorced four times (that is probably a low blow, but the fact that he obviously does not understand women as human beings comes across in this book incredibly strongly).
Also, why the heck did he include a bibliography? This book is completely a book of magical realism and so much of it is detached from reality and obviously NOT historical, you can't really trust any of it to be historically accurate unless you're familiar with the period and can judge for yourself what is real and what is false. Is the bibliography just there to show off that he did in fact do research?
I've read sexist books before. There are plenty of them out there, but usually I can glide over the sexist bits because overall the plot/characters/writing are good enough that I choose to ignore the fact that the women are horribly written (looking at you, Robert Jordan). But in this book I cared not a whit about any character, the plot was leaden and the writing was so stilted and musty I thought for a bit it had to be a translated book, despite the fact that I know Rushdie writes in English. Basically, every woman in this is either an insecure shrew (Machiavelli's wife, Akbar's wives) or an empty vessel that men project their sexual fantasies on to. The Enchantress herself is basically powered by hotness. Her magic is her beauty. The female servants in the book are literally their mistress' echo (Gulbadan's servant) or mirror (the enchantress' servant) thus devoiding them of the little personality that the other women get. The enchantress (whose second husband names her Angelique, a name she decides to share with her mirror/servant) decides to fulfill the fantasy that Budweiser ads promise in commercials, namely a threesome with hot, willing twins. Of course, there's never any jealousy between the enchantress and the mirror over the second husband, nor is the mirror ever shown to care that her mistress basically whores her out to the second husband. That would require them to be presented as human, when really the women in this book are ciphers for male fantasies. I mean, for goodness sake, the Mughal's favorite wife (who was an actual historical person) is a figment of her husband's imagination (who, despite this, is able to give him great sex). And don't even get me started on the part of the book when all the women in the Mughal's city became petty and quarrelsome with each other, but were cured when they were ordered to walk around naked all day and realized they were all flawed and human (uh...yeah...). The worst part of it all was that I got the feeling that Rushdie considered this book romantic. No wonder this guy has been married and divorced four times (that is probably a low blow, but the fact that he obviously does not understand women as human beings comes across in this book incredibly strongly).
Also, why the heck did he include a bibliography? This book is completely a book of magical realism and so much of it is detached from reality and obviously NOT historical, you can't really trust any of it to be historically accurate unless you're familiar with the period and can judge for yourself what is real and what is false. Is the bibliography just there to show off that he did in fact do research?
smoocheee's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
book_lvr's review against another edition
5.0
This is the second Rushide book I've read and he's slowly becoming a favorite. In the beginning, I had the same trouble I had with Midnight's Children: although the writing was beautiful, it was all over the place and I had a hard time picking it up. However, once I was past the first few chapters, I was completely enthralled. Rushdie is a master of mesmerizing his readers with his words. My advice, let him take you wherever the story leads. In the end, it is not "what happened" that matters, but "where have I been" and "what have I felt". It's just that magical.
skyreader's review against another edition
3.0
This is a literary version of Salvador Dali's painting in which everything is possible: dreams mix with history, facts with fiction and fairy tales all distorted through the unique viewing glass of the storyteller. It is told in a voice that makes the reader believe, or at least want to believe in the story. If you like myths and tales of love, sorcery and enchantment from the past, you'll find it here.
evetoi's review against another edition
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
nlammata's review against another edition
3.0
As Salman ages, his novels veer more and more into the realm of softcore porn. Kudos.
ljcostel's review against another edition
4.0
How does a man write so compellingly (in metaphor) about what is/was to be a women through history?
miklosha's review against another edition
3.0
From what I can understand, much of the criticism of this book appears to stem from a hope that it would be like Rushdies better known works. Alas, this is no Midnights Children or Satanic Verses; but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
The yellow haired storyteller paints a family tree for an emperor in the spirit of Sharazade, documenting his mothers travels across Europe and Asia. The story alternates between interactions between Emperor Akbar and the Mughal of Love and the history of the Mughals mother, a transcendant figure turned saint turned general force of nature. This altnernating storyline succeeds to propel the story, but while the former plot thread is comtemplative and abstract (A Rushdie literary style), the latter is overly complex and stilted.
Together, much of Rushdie radiates out of the Enchantress of Florence; it is just that it doesnt come together in the same way his other books have.
The yellow haired storyteller paints a family tree for an emperor in the spirit of Sharazade, documenting his mothers travels across Europe and Asia. The story alternates between interactions between Emperor Akbar and the Mughal of Love and the history of the Mughals mother, a transcendant figure turned saint turned general force of nature. This altnernating storyline succeeds to propel the story, but while the former plot thread is comtemplative and abstract (A Rushdie literary style), the latter is overly complex and stilted.
Together, much of Rushdie radiates out of the Enchantress of Florence; it is just that it doesnt come together in the same way his other books have.