Fury

Fury

by Salman Rushdie

A NEW YORK TIMES NOTABLE BOOKSalman Rushdies great grasp of the human tragicomedyits dimensions, its absurdities and horrorshas made him one of the most intelligent fiction writers in the English language.Gail Caldwell, The Boston GlobeFury is a profoundly, ecstatically affirmative work of fiction.

He arrives in New York at a time of unprecedented plenty, in the highest hour of Americas wealth and power, seeking to erase himself.

An astonishing work of explosive energy, Fury is by turns a piti and pitch-black comedy, a love story of mesmerizing force, and a disturbing inquiry into the darkest side of human nature.Rushdies ideasabout society, about culture, about politicsare embedded in his stories and in the interlocking momentum with which he tells them.

. All of Rushdies synthesizing energy, the way he brings together ancient myth and old story, contemporary incident and archetypal emotion, transfigures reason into a waking dream.Los Angeles Times Book ReviewWell, here it is, then, his first 3-D, full-volume American novel, finger-snapping, wildly stupefying, often slyly funny, red-blooded and red-toothed.

  • Language: English
  • Category: Fiction
  • Rating: 3.29
  • Pages: 272
  • Publish Date: September 5th 2002 by Vintage
  • Isbn10: 0099421860
  • Isbn13: 9780099421863

What People Think about "Fury"

He writes of this fury, born of long injustice, beside which his own unpredictable temper was a thing of pathetic insignificance, the indulgence, perhaps, of a privileged individual with too much self-interest. Coetzee, Rushdie, McEwan, Cunningham they all write about the rich folk having feelings too.

Sloppy and uninteresting, filled with trite observations and vapid, transparent characters bumbling around in a lame social satire that amounts to nothing deeper or insightful than whatever you and your friends might say about celebrity culture while watching "Entertainment Tonight". But still not as much as I hate this book.

and I expected a detective book (yes I actually read the synopsis diagonally!

Of the 4 works Ive read of his, my reactions have ranged from ever-growing adoration (The Moors Last Sigh, which Ive read 9 times in 4 years and will read yet again) to reluctant reading (The Satanic Verses, which has some nuggets of pure brilliance and heady defiance in an otherwise dump of garbage). Because he boldly says what needs to be said, without mincing his words. Much of the really beautiful aspects of his works are esoteric they are references that only people really, deeply aware about India can understand, so Im not surprised at non-Indians not falling so deeply in love with him. I love people like that who break taboos, who make me swallow the bitter-tinged filth of my identity when I open my mouth to laugh hard at his explicit expletive-laden language. Because his language is not just a gimmick to shock and scandalize read between the lines, and there is bitter, biting sarcasm, political satire, loads of historical/cultural references, psychological insights into the era of the setting, the numerous popular-culture references crucial to the shaping of that time. The only time I caught a faint flicker of Rushdie was at the end of Chapter 9 where he attacked an extremely unpleasant aspect of Gandhi every Indian has either chosen to overlook or furiously deny and forget: Like Gandhi performing his brahmacharya (celibacy) experiments of truth, when the wives of his friends lay with him at night to enable him to test the mastery of mind over limb, he (Solanka) preserved the outward form of high propriety; and so did she, so did she. The only reason I did not lem this book was that I wanted to know if this ceaseless criticism on the book was justified, or if it was plain unacceptance of any methodological deviance from the signature Rushdie style.

While reading the first chapters of this book, I felt like highlighting every line.

His fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, led to protests from Muslims in several countries, some of which were violent.