I recently mentioned Salman Rushdie as an example of an author where I encountered superb examples of first and was, as a result, carried through others which moved me less or not at all.
(I've just reread that sentence, and am uneasily aware of its shortcomings. But, time is short and I can't immediately see how to overhaul it ... so, let it stand. Anyroad, to return to the point...)[1]
I have for some time been in a Rushdie lull, with a couple of books sitting unread on the shelf. Then, recently, I was loaned The enchantress of Florence. It was in mint condition (its owner is a careful reader) and, feeling that I should return it quickly before I damaged it, I dived in.
My Rushdie lull is, as a result, over. In The enchantress of Venice, Rushdie dazzlingly demonstrates his Scheherezade like ability to hypnotise through sheer complex story telling power.
Wonderful.
- Salman Rushdie, The enchantress of Florence. 2008, London: Jonathan Cape. 9780224061636 (hbk) and 9780224082433 (pbk.)
- This footnote is mainly to annoy Unreal Nature (which recently not only used a footnote of its own but did so from the post title), but also to acknowledge that the para to which it is linked (a) should probably have been placed in a footnote and (b) demonstrates the opinion of both Ray Girvan and Julie Heyward that footnotes can indicate lack of organisation on the part of the writer (the writer, here, of course, being me).
