Scan barcode
A review by bellatora
The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie
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?