Scan barcode
A review by isadoralesteve
Shalimar the Clown by Salman Rushdie
3.0
Salman Rushdie has a distinctive and unique authorial voice, which is as quick-witted and daring, as it is lyrical and poetic. However this does not always make the act of reading his work easy, or indeed at times, enjoyable.
When I read Midnight's Children I remember observing to my partner that it was like reading 'literary masturabation'. Perhaps a crude term, but it was the best way I could encapsulate the pleasure that emulated from the work, as it made another erudite reference or witty aside. The writing is incredibly deliberate and I could not help but feel that Rushdie was, and is, incredibly pleased with his intellectual prowess and skill in writing in this way.
In this regard 'Shalimar the Clown' takes after its predecessors, although in a perhaps slightly more toned down form. It is littered with Rushdie's trademark flair for the English language with nods to both high and low culture littered throughout. Like Midnight's Children, it seeks to explore contemporary Indian and Pakistani politics (regarding Kashmir) through the lens of one 'family' (although I use the term loosely in this regard as an epic about one family this is not). At times it achieved its aims with roaring success. The middle two sections, 'Boonyi' and 'Max' I found to be incredibly well-written and enchanting. I have always found that Rushdie writes to place and time well, and these sections, set within Kashmir, Alsace and England are well conceived and executed.
Similarly I enjoy the way that Rushdie mirrors events between characters with national history and politics, most notably for me in 'Shalimar the Clown' with an event that occurs and mirrors the 25-day war between India and Pakistan in 1965. Rushdie is a highly allegorical writer who enjoys playing with history and weaving it incredibly intricately within his stories. This often works successfully within the plot, and if nothing else, one cannot help but admire his skill in doing this. It adds depth to his stories, and a sense of importance and timelessness.
Despite this, I did not enjoy reading 'Shalimar the Clown' overall. I found the opening section (India) to be near-impenetrable and nearly put the book down. Once beyond this and into section 2 the storyline and narrative picked up significantly, hence why I continued to read, however again in section 4 (Shalimar the Clown), I found the story lost its voice. Perhaps this is in part because I found that Rushdie writes Kashmir, and wartime Alsace far more effectively, and evocatively than 90s USA, which was written more like a caricature and with far less zeal and flair. Perhaps Rushdie would argue that this is deliberate, illustrating the USA's lack of history in comparison to its counterparts, however it made these sections dry and boring. Aside from this, I found the 'Shalimar the Clown' section to be predictable and almost unnecessary. By this point the story had really been told, and I did not feel it necessary to include Shalimar's narrative - I would have happily cut this section out all together to move onto the final section, Kashmira, and do not think this would have detracted from the story in any way.
Reading Rushdie is never a bad idea. His work is admirable - he is a highly skilled story-teller who writes with flair and gusto. That being said, reading Rushdie is also hard work. Whilst at times I feel that you can truly fall into the rhythmic flow of his writing, he can also be a slog. When you are prepared for the slog, Rushdie is rewarding and in this regard Shalimar the Clown is a recommended read. However, for Rushdie at his best, turn first to Midnight's Children or The Moor's Last Sigh.
When I read Midnight's Children I remember observing to my partner that it was like reading 'literary masturabation'. Perhaps a crude term, but it was the best way I could encapsulate the pleasure that emulated from the work, as it made another erudite reference or witty aside. The writing is incredibly deliberate and I could not help but feel that Rushdie was, and is, incredibly pleased with his intellectual prowess and skill in writing in this way.
In this regard 'Shalimar the Clown' takes after its predecessors, although in a perhaps slightly more toned down form. It is littered with Rushdie's trademark flair for the English language with nods to both high and low culture littered throughout. Like Midnight's Children, it seeks to explore contemporary Indian and Pakistani politics (regarding Kashmir) through the lens of one 'family' (although I use the term loosely in this regard as an epic about one family this is not). At times it achieved its aims with roaring success. The middle two sections, 'Boonyi' and 'Max' I found to be incredibly well-written and enchanting. I have always found that Rushdie writes to place and time well, and these sections, set within Kashmir, Alsace and England are well conceived and executed.
Similarly I enjoy the way that Rushdie mirrors events between characters with national history and politics, most notably for me in 'Shalimar the Clown' with an event that occurs and mirrors the 25-day war between India and Pakistan in 1965. Rushdie is a highly allegorical writer who enjoys playing with history and weaving it incredibly intricately within his stories. This often works successfully within the plot, and if nothing else, one cannot help but admire his skill in doing this. It adds depth to his stories, and a sense of importance and timelessness.
Despite this, I did not enjoy reading 'Shalimar the Clown' overall. I found the opening section (India) to be near-impenetrable and nearly put the book down. Once beyond this and into section 2 the storyline and narrative picked up significantly, hence why I continued to read, however again in section 4 (Shalimar the Clown), I found the story lost its voice. Perhaps this is in part because I found that Rushdie writes Kashmir, and wartime Alsace far more effectively, and evocatively than 90s USA, which was written more like a caricature and with far less zeal and flair. Perhaps Rushdie would argue that this is deliberate, illustrating the USA's lack of history in comparison to its counterparts, however it made these sections dry and boring. Aside from this, I found the 'Shalimar the Clown' section to be predictable and almost unnecessary. By this point the story had really been told, and I did not feel it necessary to include Shalimar's narrative - I would have happily cut this section out all together to move onto the final section, Kashmira, and do not think this would have detracted from the story in any way.
Reading Rushdie is never a bad idea. His work is admirable - he is a highly skilled story-teller who writes with flair and gusto. That being said, reading Rushdie is also hard work. Whilst at times I feel that you can truly fall into the rhythmic flow of his writing, he can also be a slog. When you are prepared for the slog, Rushdie is rewarding and in this regard Shalimar the Clown is a recommended read. However, for Rushdie at his best, turn first to Midnight's Children or The Moor's Last Sigh.