I finished reading Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's Children" last night – it took me 13 days, but it probably deserved another two weeks of my time to really savor it. If you're planning on reading it I strongly suggest taking your time with it, maybe just a chapter a day. Otherwise you may find, as I did, that the style or "form" of the writing becomes really annoying. For the past five days, every time I picked up the book I said (often out loud, so I endured mockery) "I'm going to finish this book today, because if I have to it again tomorrow I'll..." Well, now I'm done, and I'm so relieved that if I weren't writing this I would be reading something else. Anything. Cereal boxes. Anything. Gosh, I feel like I'm panning this book, which is really, truly not my intention. I guess I'm just a bit disappointed. I expected, hoped, to be really blown away by the Booker of Bookers and instead I found it was a slightly irritating but ok novel.This seems deeply unfair, because I actually liked the novel. I did not love it but I did like it. The premise is super interesting, and the sentences are often gorgeous. It's going into my re-read pile as I honestly believe another look could make me fall in love with it. I can see why people love it - but right now I don't. The story is narrated by one Saleem Sinai, starting with his grandparents courtship and going right through to his own death (I maintain this is not a spoiler, as he tells you right out that he’s dying) and encompassing the history of India. Saleem was born at midnight as India became an independent nation, the premise being that they are psychic twins whose fate is intertwined. In addition, there were a thousand other children born during that first hour of independence and they all possess some magical abilities. It’s a very cool idea and I'll admit that I kind of wish a genre author had written this book to give more weight to that magical element. I feel I was tricked out of a really cool fantasy story and given historical fiction instead. Not that there's anything wrong with historical fiction, but that fantasy idea was so good, I feel it deserved a better treatment.
Beyond that, I had a couple of other issues with this novel. As I mentioned, the form, the style of Rushdie’s writing, his beautiful looping narrative and elegant sentences – well, they got really annoying. Even though the sentences are beautiful, and the descriptions are lush and deeply textured, I found myself echoing the character of Padma, begging just please come on and tell the story now, I need some action no not more political history! People, action, character motivation, please! It was driving me crazy. Saleem starts to tell a story, then stops himself and goes back because that story comes later - I mean, it's a good tease once-in-a-while but when it's every other chapter (and that's being generous) it gets to be a bit much. By which I mean totally freaking annoying. Although, I suspect (hope) that my irritation is a result of reading the book so quickly (lol!) and if I were to have spaced it out a bit more I may be enjoyed that technique. However, for this read through, it was super annoying. I also found that I really didn't have any emotional connection with these characters. There are a lot of characters, a lot of horrible things happen, there are horrible deaths, but none of it mattered to me - because, to me, it felt like none of it mattered to Saleem. Even when he's saying how angry he is, or how much he loves someone, they are just words. I don't believe any of it. The exile and amnesia segment, where there should be a different emotional pitch to the story, is only different because Saleem jumps between a first person and third person narrative. The narration is too passive, considering it is first-person. I felt alienated from the story. I don't know, maybe that was the intention, to showcase the alienation from society. Maybe this is another case of me just not getting the Art. As I said, I really liked the premise of the magical Midnight Children, but my grasp of Indian history and the politics of the 1960’s and ‘70’s is pretty weak, so I may not be the target audience on this. It could also have a lot to do with the idea of the oral tradition, of which that looping narrative is also a part. I’m not entirely sure, but it did take the edge of the pleasure of an otherwise interesting novel.I’ve been following another blog the past couple weeks, www.thinskinofculture.blogspot.com – and he’s making me feel like the slowest reader in the world! A book a day?! I can see that with a children’s book, but there is no way I could finish a book like “Midnight’s Children” in a day! So, to compensate for my feelings of inadequacy, I’m going to try to finish two books this week. Wish me luck! Also, I'm skipping ahead chronologically, because I don't feel like trying to read “Schindler's Ark” this week. I suspect it's going to take me more than the allotted 7 days, and I also suspect it's going to be an emotionally heavy read. So, I'm temporarily jumping ahead to a couple of shorter novels, starting with “Life and Times of Michael K.” by J.M. Coetzee and then “Hotel du Lac” by Anita Brookner. I feel like I’m cheating by skipping ahead, but the only real rule for my little challenge was to finish all the books within one year.
Happy reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment