Salman Rushdie | Criticism

This literature criticism consists of approximately 10 pages of analysis & critique of Salman Rushdie.
This section contains 2,605 words
(approx. 9 pages at 300 words per page)
Buy the Critical Review by Lee Siegel

SOURCE: Siegel, Lee. “Wild in the Streets.” Los Angeles Times Book Review (2 September 2001): 3-4.

In the following review, Siegel identifies Saul Bellow's Mr. Sammler's Planet and F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby as textual inspirations for Rushdie's Fury.

Art critic Clement Greenberg once described someone as being “stupid as a painter.” Painters consider his remark high praise. For them, Greenberg meant to say that because artists' very viscera are lined with thought, they don't need to think their way to the truth. Artists' instincts do the driving; their minds catch up later. Interpretation comes later too, in the eye of the spectator. Yet the real meaning of a painting cannot be articulated in any language other than the idiom of brushstroke and paint.

In this sense, Salman Rushdie is a stupid novelist, as opposed to, say, the highly reflective Saul Bellow or Milan Kundera. Just as Jackson Pollock's...

(read more)

This section contains 2,605 words
(approx. 9 pages at 300 words per page)
Buy the Critical Review by Lee Siegel
Copyrights
Gale
Critical Review by Lee Siegel from Gale. ©2005-2006 Thomson Gale, a part of the Thomson Corporation. All rights reserved.
Follow Us on Facebook