Scan barcode
satyajitc's review against another edition
4.0
To be fair, I skimmed through some of the essays because I was not interested in the topics, such as essays on Bills in Parliament from the 80s, or an experience at a festival in Adelaide. It’s however staggering to see how prescient some of Rushdie’s observations on religion, racism, fundamentalism, politics, and art are, and how progressive he comes across in his essays. The hit job on John le Carre’s work also echoes with the latter’s public reaction to Rushdie’s situation following Satanic Verses. I should also look at East, West next.
kaumlaut's review against another edition
Criticisms of other books were not particularly interesting since I haven't read them myself.
still_figuring_it_all_out's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
kaeli's review against another edition
5.0
You’re reading a book of book reviews? Michelle asks. Isn’t that BORING? Indeed, it should be, but with a voice like his nothing could ever be boring. In fact, of all the books I’ve been reading I found myself most itching to get back into the pages of this one. It was ideal for breakfast, devourable at (and past) bedtime, and good every hour in between. Full of heartfelt sentiments, soul-satisfying philosophizing, and cheeky wordplay. It is said of some movie actors, “I could listen to them read the phone book.” If such a thing makes sense, I would read the phone book as written by Salman Rushdie. He’s given me countless recommendations for books I now long to read, and he’s managed to entertain me while extolling the virtues (or digging into the faults) of books I have no intention to pick up. As always, he makes you laugh, he makes you think, he makes you want to pick up the torch and take up the battle cry, and at the same time makes you hang back, cast some doubts and rethink what the battle is all about, anyways. An excellent collection of essays.
jadzia's review against another edition
4.0
This was my first encounter with Salman Rushdie, and definitely not the last one. "Imaginary Homelands" is a set of articles written by Rushdie between 1981 and 1991. It includes a wide range of different topics, from the politician situations, history, economics, to culture and literature. Rushdie has a lot to say and those are wide words, so I had loads to think about during reading this book. I think I made a mistake starting from this particular position, as he sometimes referred to his older books, which I don't know yet. Thus, I think it is better to start from one of his fictions. Those essays and critics are also coming from before 30 years, so not all the topics are that actual or interesting for contemporary reader. For everyone, who already started their jounney with Rushdie. Mine has just begun.
torts's review against another edition
4.0
I read "Commonwealth Literature Does Not Exist," "Hobson-Jobson," "Is Nothing Sacred?" and "Why I have Embraced Islam." I must say, I actually prefer reading Rushdie's essays to reading his fiction. His narrative voice is more pleasant to me when it's in an essay.
Thoughts on each essay:
"Commonwealth Literature Does Not Exist"
Nicely coincides with my recent obsession with the idea of strategic essentialism. Like, in the fifth paragraph Rushdie says it's weird how there's "a school of literature whose supposed members deny vehemently that they belong to it." And then later he suggests that the disempowered or "colonized" peoples are remaking English itself. He talks about how "Commonwealth literature" is a category which narrows "English literature" to be "something topographical, nationalistic, possibly even racially segregationist" and how it's divisive. He's a big proponent of a universal community of writers. And he makes a good case for it. Examples? Rushdie himself was born in India and wrote about Pakistan from England, which he cites as evidence for "the folly of trying to contain writers inside passports." He ends by saying that "Commonwealth literature" should not exist. But that "even ghosts can be made to exist if you set up enough faculties, if you write enough books and appoint enough research students." Well said, sir.
"Hobson-Jobson"
Evidence for that whole remaking of English thing? I don't know what his point was, really.
"Is Nothing Sacred?"
Love it. Rushdie definitely won over the book-lover in me for the way he clearly loves the written word. And how did that make me love him? Because of the way he talks about kissing books. And describes novels as "the form created to discuss the fragmentation of truth." And likens the author's role to something religious("It is for art to capture that [mystical] experience, to offer it to, in the case of literature, its readers; to be, for a secular, materialist culture, some sort of replacement for what the love of god offers in the world of faith.") only to revoke that "sacralizing" of literature a couple of pages later. And then, of course, there is that awesome description of life as a house. Which ties up the speech/essay with an extended metaphor for the importance of literature: "Literature is the one place in any society where, within the secrecy of our own heads, we can hear voices talking about everything in every possible way ." Yes.
"Why I Have Embraced Islam"
I don't think he actually answers the question in this title. Or maybe I was just overwhelmed/confused/slightly upset with the retraction of the atheism which was so fundamental to the voice I fell in love with in "Is Nothing Sacred?" That said, it was interesting still. And I definitely respect his eloquence in describing the intent behind what he wrote and how he now feels about it. And the way he shared his experience with Islam. This essay definitely offers interesting context for Rushdie's controversial Satanic Verses. And insight into how authors' perspectives on their own words shifts and reflects/reacts to public opinion.
Overall: ambivalence? I liked (read: agreed with) much of what Rushdie wrote. When I understood (read: could relate to) what Rushdie was saying, I appreciated it. But he has a way of seeming to write from somewhere that I can't quite understand. Like maybe he's withholding or suppressing some anger? I don't know, there's just something which pushes me away even as I want to love him. Maybe that I don't actually like his fiction much? Or maybe they're both just part of that same undefinable undercurrent.
Thoughts on each essay:
"Commonwealth Literature Does Not Exist"
Nicely coincides with my recent obsession with the idea of strategic essentialism. Like, in the fifth paragraph Rushdie says it's weird how there's "a school of literature whose supposed members deny vehemently that they belong to it." And then later he suggests that the disempowered or "colonized" peoples are remaking English itself. He talks about how "Commonwealth literature" is a category which narrows "English literature" to be "something topographical, nationalistic, possibly even racially segregationist" and how it's divisive. He's a big proponent of a universal community of writers. And he makes a good case for it. Examples? Rushdie himself was born in India and wrote about Pakistan from England, which he cites as evidence for "the folly of trying to contain writers inside passports." He ends by saying that "Commonwealth literature" should not exist. But that "even ghosts can be made to exist if you set up enough faculties, if you write enough books and appoint enough research students." Well said, sir.
"Hobson-Jobson"
Evidence for that whole remaking of English thing? I don't know what his point was, really.
"Is Nothing Sacred?"
Love it. Rushdie definitely won over the book-lover in me for the way he clearly loves the written word. And how did that make me love him? Because of the way he talks about kissing books. And describes novels as "the form created to discuss the fragmentation of truth." And likens the author's role to something religious("It is for art to capture that [mystical] experience, to offer it to, in the case of literature, its readers; to be, for a secular, materialist culture, some sort of replacement for what the love of god offers in the world of faith.") only to revoke that "sacralizing" of literature a couple of pages later. And then, of course, there is that awesome description of life as a house. Which ties up the speech/essay with an extended metaphor for the importance of literature: "Literature is the one place in any society where, within the secrecy of our own heads, we can hear voices talking about everything in every possible way ." Yes.
"Why I Have Embraced Islam"
I don't think he actually answers the question in this title. Or maybe I was just overwhelmed/confused/slightly upset with the retraction of the atheism which was so fundamental to the voice I fell in love with in "Is Nothing Sacred?" That said, it was interesting still. And I definitely respect his eloquence in describing the intent behind what he wrote and how he now feels about it. And the way he shared his experience with Islam. This essay definitely offers interesting context for Rushdie's controversial Satanic Verses. And insight into how authors' perspectives on their own words shifts and reflects/reacts to public opinion.
Overall: ambivalence? I liked (read: agreed with) much of what Rushdie wrote. When I understood (read: could relate to) what Rushdie was saying, I appreciated it. But he has a way of seeming to write from somewhere that I can't quite understand. Like maybe he's withholding or suppressing some anger? I don't know, there's just something which pushes me away even as I want to love him. Maybe that I don't actually like his fiction much? Or maybe they're both just part of that same undefinable undercurrent.
More...