free counter with statistics The Enchantress of Florence | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

enchant.jpg

The Moor’s Next-to-Last Sigh

The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie / Jennifer McKeown

Book Reviews | July 9, 2008 | Comments (17)

I have to admit: I wasn’t excited to read Salman Rushdie’s latest novel, The Enchantress of Florence, which has received some pretty horrible reviews. One critic has called it “the worst thing he has ever written” and USA Today argued that “the best thing about Salman Rushdie’s tiresome and confusing new novel The Enchantress of Florence is its lovely gold and orange cover.” (For what it’s worth, I thought the cover was unimpressive.)

I therefore vowed to get through this one as quickly as possible, speed-reading my way through the first 200 pages in a few hours. Perhaps it was due to the speed of my read that I found Enchantress…OK. I didn’t want to call everyone I knew and exhort them to read this amazing new book, but I certainly wasn’t about to knock the tale in favor of the cover. And, unlike The Satanic Verses, which I remember toiling through, I found The Enchantress of Florence to be a pretty light and easy read.

Enchantress, set in the sixteenth century, begins as a European traveler arrives at the court of Akbar, emperor of the Mughal Empire. This traveler, who calls himself “Mogor dell’Amore” (his real name is revealed later in the novel), has a secret which can be told to only one person: Akbar himself.

For his part, Akbar is an enigmatic character. A modern ruler, Akbar doubts the existence of God, is interested in the clash of ideas, and refuses to eat meat; in short, he is “a contradiction in terms.” He is open to hearing the tale that Mogor dell’Amore tells, a tale that will blend the world of Akbar with the world of the Italian Renaissance.

The Enchantress of Florence is divided into three parts: the first third concerns Mogor dell’Amore and his travels to reach Akbar; the second relates the story of three friends in Florence, Italy; and the third tells the tale of Qara Koz, a forgotten Mughal princess whose beauty enchants all who see her.

As the story progresses, the fictive meets the factual, and real-life personages such as Amerigo Vespucci, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Botticelli appear beside their literary counterparts. Vlad the Impaler even makes a cameo. This technique is at the heart of Rushdie’s novel: that the real can become art, that art can become real.

The Enchantress of Florence becomes a glorification of the storyteller, of the creative act. Several characters merge art with the real. Akbar has imagined his favorite wife, Jodha, into being, and is so captured by this imaginary wife that his other wives resent her. An artist disappears into his painting, to forever join the beauty for which he pines. Even Mogor dell’Amore, a “teller of tales” who can “dream in seven languages,” finds that “as soon as he fell asleep half the world started babbling in his brain.” Rushdie proves that “the creation of a real life from a dream [is] a superhuman act,” and I couldn’t ignore a sneaking suspicion that the author was secretly applauding his own talents during these scenes.

Just as the act of creation is lauded, so too is the act of enchanting. The Enchantress of Florence glorifies the power of women, but the only power women have lies in their ability to enchant, a limited power at best. Men and even women are enchanted by Qara Koz, whose beauty secures her survival. Skeleton, an extremely skinny whore, is so versed in “the unguents necessary for the heightening of sexual desire and the prolongation of sexual congress” that she is able to secure Mogor dell’Amore’s entry into the city. Men die for the beauty of Simonetta Vespucci. As powerful as their beauty makes them, however, all women are powerless before men, who wield the ultimate power. Jodha only lives while Akbar imagines her. Skeleton will forever be a whore. Angelique, a beautiful girl sold into slavery, is reduced to little more than a repository for the memories of a man.

These characters and their various situations are the backdrop against which Rushdie formulates his ideas regarding beauty, power, art, and even the nature of humanity. At times, the novel seems little more than a mish-mash of these ideas, but the intensity of Rushdie’s prose saves the novel from becoming too philosophic. Rushdie powerfully brings both India and Italy to life, and the sumptuousness of his prose is the best aspect of the work. The city of Florence becomes “a pair of women’s lips puckering for a kiss” and the lake next to Akbar’s city appears like “a sea of molten gold.”

Prose aside, The Enchantress of Florence is far from perfect: the insinuation that women have only enchantment at their disposal is a little annoying. Furthermore, the end was under-whelming and did not provide the impact that one was led to expect. I refuse to agree that the best thing about The Enchantress of Florence is its cover, but I don’t feel moved to read more Rushdie any time soon.


Jennifer McKeown reads way too much and blogs about her experiences over at Bibliolatry.


← Fuzzy Navel | Clash of the Titans →



Comments

Certainly this book sounds like it's not worth reading, but is "The Satanic Verses" something I should force myself to read? I've picked it up and put it down on numerous occasions, but I just haven't been able to foresee any possible future enjoyment from those first few pages. They were...painful. I'll try it again if someone tells me it gets better!

P.S. Sorry...I don't know how to do html tags, or whatever they're called, in order to properly italicize the title!

Posted by: JMK at July 9, 2008 2:03 PM

I tried The Satanic Verses as well and found myself advocating it's destruction by page 20. I am not a fan of Mr. Rushdie and have no plans to read any of his work.

This book sounds ridiculous and my praise goes to Jennifer for slogging through what seems like a very tedious enterprise at best.

Posted by: Melody at July 9, 2008 2:30 PM

JMK, there's an interesting rule that I heard from librarian-superstar Nancy Pearl about how many pages to read into a book before you give up. Everyone under 50 should read the first 50 pages of a book. But if it hasn't captured you after 50 pages, it won't. For every year you are older than 50, subtract a page from the amount you "should" read. So use that as a guide if you wish.

Personally, I also try to give books a second (or third) chance a few years later as tastes tend to mature and change. (I do this with foods as well and have been pleasantly delighted with foods I thought I didn't like.) I tried to read The Satanic Verses a few months ago and didn't enjoy it. I'll probably try in a year or two again. I try because it is a classic and one of those books that educated people are supposed to have read. And I like to flatter myself that I am educated and cultured (or something). It all feeds into my inner elitist. This week marked my second attempt to read Anna Karenina and I am legitimately loving it. Of course it also has to do with my mood at the moment. Sometimes I want something simplistic and lighthearted, just fluff (or beach reading if you will), other times I feel more serious and substanial.

However, I think I will pass on this one.

Posted by: libraryliz at July 9, 2008 3:23 PM

_Midnight's Children_ is Rushdie's greatest novel and is just truly great in it's own right. Read that before _Satanic Verses_.

Posted by: Robb at July 9, 2008 4:36 PM

I like "East, West," a collection of short stories - he's an interesting writer, but all the novels (except "Midnight's Children") feel a little like facing a plate full of overcooked broccoli. I like broccoli a lot, but an entire plateful? And mushy?

Posted by: taylor at July 9, 2008 6:49 PM

I have spoken with several people regarding The Satanic Verses, and whether it's worth the hassle. Everyone I've talked to, including Muslims, have told me the same thing: "Don't waste your time on The Satanic Verses; read Midnight's Children instead". Of course, I went ahead and bought Verses, trudges through the first hundred pages and said fuggit. Rushdie's latest sounds like another trudge, so no thanks.

Posted by: DGM at July 9, 2008 11:01 PM

I'll second East, West, Taylor. I found "The Courter" to be a beautiful read. Of course, I'm a huge fan of post-colonial literature. I've never tried any of his larger works, though.

Posted by: nutmeag at July 9, 2008 11:15 PM

I have been a loyal Pajiban for years now, and finally feel the urge to comment here. While Rushdie's work can sometimes be surreal to the point of incoherence, (I also struggled initially with Verses, but found that it improved as I continued to read) when he writes well, his prose can be absolutely breathtaking. If his words were tangible things, I would strip naked and roll in them.

His best book, in my estimation, is Shalimar the Clown. It's an approachable book even for those who aren't into the whole "magical realism" thing, and his female characters are complex, strange, strong, mystical and goddesses in every sense of the word.

Do you think his portrayal in this book might have anything to do with that culinary slut that broke his heart? Discuss . . .

Posted by: bibliophile at July 10, 2008 12:00 AM

Jenn:

Your first mistake was "speed reading" through the first 200 pages! Rushdie's prose is denser than most, and really needs to be savored like a fine wine -- not gulped to get to the bottom of the bottle.

Second, you are right about the power of women, enchantment and allure is limited and limiting, but remember, this is set in the 16th century, things were not then as they should have been or are now. Maybe Rushdie is reminding all those 20 something women (present company excepted), who take women's rights and reproductive rights for granted, exactly how far women have come.

Rushdie is one of the GREAT writers of the 20th century. His interview by Bill Moyers during his series "On Faith and Reason," was spectacular. His prose is work, but, like chess, if you only play an opponent you beat every time, you will never get any better. Challenge thyself -- at least from time to time.

As far as Nancy Pearl's rule of 50, I have been using that rule for MANY years before Nancy first found her way to a library, and I can tell you it is not a rule to be abused. I would have missed out on quite a few great books if I had have used it more often. Sometimes patience is the order of the day!

-Chiron

Posted by: Chiron at July 10, 2008 8:25 AM

I agree that Rushdie's most accessible book is Shalimar the Clown. My favorite will always be Midnight's Children but I do realize that many people will find it daunting. The hoi polloi usually cannot stomach literature.

Posted by: Aramis at July 10, 2008 9:52 AM

My honours supervisor, who publishes on postcolonial Indian lit, had told me on several occasions that she thinks Midnight's Children is Rushdie's only really great novel and that he spent all of his good material in one go (she thinks he is a one-hit wonder). I've read both Satanic Verses and Midnight's Children and MC is defintely my favourite, although I found BOTH of them really hard to get into but still rewarding at the end. Years on though, I find myself thinking about MC a lot, and SatVerses not at all.
So, I think that they're both worth the read, but even as a poco lover I'm not going out of my way to read any other Rushdie.

Posted by: Rahel at July 10, 2008 11:19 AM

JMK please don't force yourself to read anything. Good literature, even the old stuff, should be enjoyable. Reading should not be like taking medicine, done just because it is good for you. I like the 50 page rule - I just read The Last Thing He Wanted by Joan Didion, and it took a few chapters to get into her rhythm. Rushdie is like this for me, too, but the payoff is so good.

Satanic Verses I only really liked parts of (the butterfly girl parts), the London parts I trudged through to get to the good stuff.

I highly, highly recommend Haroun and the Sea of Stories as a light, fun, awesomely written read. And Midnight's Children is just dense and gross and yummy and fantastic (it is my favorite, too, Aramis. I'm a Rushdie super-fan. I even liked Ground beneath Her Feet. So, I'll read Enchantress also, I won't be able to help myself.

I want to address the whole "women as enchantresses" thing, but my comment is too long already.

Posted by: phquaryn at July 10, 2008 11:29 AM

Did you read Shalimar the Clown? I was surprised it didn't get more attention but, then again, I've been living overseas for years so I don't really have any idea of what gets attention in the U.S. these days. Is Pajiba any indication?

Posted by: Aramis at July 10, 2008 4:36 PM

Aramis, no, I haven't read Shalimar yet, but I will now! And, no, Pajiba is not really an indication of what gets attention in the US, sadly. Oh, how I wish it was.

Posted by: phquaryn at July 11, 2008 10:05 AM

I personally really like Salman Rushdie after reading Shalimar the Clown. It's one of my favorite books. I loved the combination of every genre. I have never read Midnight's Children, but it's on my list. I slogged through Satanic Verses and found it informative, but it was a very difficult, tedious read. I'll give this and Midnight's Children a try.

Posted by: Binny Singh at July 11, 2008 2:05 PM

I must admit that Rushdie, despite the fact that his arrogance often overshadows his writing and undermines his stories, is one of my favourite authors. Still, the opinion you give here is exactly the criticism I'd give for another of his novels (one I can't help but read over and over), The Ground Beneath Her Feet, a retelling of the myth of Orpheus. And how I've found my way around to forgiving his obvious lack of respect for women is to remember that he is a traditional story-teller. That is, he doesn't write female characters, he writes male fantasies.

Which is not ok, but it is what it is. To attack just Rushdie for this is to ignore the pervasive fact that this is the role women often play in media. That said, it completely detracts from the realism of his stories and his message... unless that is his message.

Posted by: leheather at July 13, 2008 10:11 PM

I couldn't get through the book. I tried really, really hard to read "The Enchantress of Florence" for the past week. I really wish I could get into it, and, to tell you the truth, I wanted it to be as magical as the front cover. I mean, the gildred gold, the elephants on the inside front- enchanting!
I read Rushdie's widely acclaimed "Midnight's Children" in my first year of uni and loved it, but then again our prof served as a live Coles Notes so I understood the writing style and what the story line actually was.
He writes in a vocal way, expressing in words how one would normally speak when telling a story. Maybe that's why I just can't get absorbed: there are too many flourishes in speech, metaphores, rich language, and a confusion as to who is speaking/ thinking and whether it's past/ present or whether a scene is happenning at all (maybe it's all in someone's mind?). It's not fun relegating it to home use due to the constant need of a dictionary.
I'll troop through it, but all I have to say is that the book was a disappointment for me having come back from India and looking for a good read about the country. Reading the back cover, I could never have anticipated the struggle to come!

Posted by: Katia at July 19, 2008 3:12 PM