Salman Rushdie - GEBRAUCHT Quichotte - Preis vom 02102023 050404 h

Nachdem ich mit den letzten drei Rushdie-Werken seit "Shalimar the Clown" nicht wirklich warm geworden bin (v.a. die letzten beiden, "Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights" und "The Golden House", waren für mich eher enttäuschend) kehrt Rushdie in "Quichotte" wieder zu alter Form zurück. Ohne vom Inhalt zu viel zu verraten könnte man das Buch als Meta-Roman bezeichnen: Rushdie schreibt über einen Autor, der einen Roman verfasst, und der Leser erlebt beide Welten, jene des Autors und jene des Romans, den er kreiert, bis beide Welten - in bester Rushdie-Manier - am Ende nicht nur Parallelen aufweisen, sondern auch ineinander übergehen. Das Buch ist klug, voller Referenzen und Anspielungen auf Politik und (Pop-)Kultur und ein wahrhaft kurzweiliges Lesevergnügen nicht nur für eingefleischte Rushdie-Fans. Kaufempfehlung!

Admittedly, I have only read a third of this book. It takes courage to re-write Cervantes‘ immortal novel, but would anyone but Rushdie be up to the challenge? Alas, he fails me as a reader in all crucial dimensions. Firstly, the story of Rushdie‘s Quichotte hinges on television consumption not knight‘s novels as the original. The difference is crucial, as the original Quichotte‘s readings at least pretend to lift the spirit of its readers, whereas modern TV doesn‘t make any claim like that (at least not to my knowledge). This Quichotte, therefore, lacks the original‘s self elevation. Secondly, Dulcinea is in the original ambiguous if not straightaway fictitious, whereas in this book Rushdie invents a complete character and doesn‘t spare us pages and pages of personal details of this lady. Thirdly, whereas the original is teeming with clever wit and is really hilarious on almost every page, Rushdie is far too busy to impress the reader with his wide knowledge of trivia and popular culture (he doesn‘t even omit the ! when talking of Oprah) that he forgets to be funny. If anything, this is a sad story...but no. Hold on. It is a story which leaves the reader completely untouched, the character is not interesting whatsoever. And Rushdie has wasted the clever invention of Sancho Pansa as well - while in the original, the two represent the two main strands of human character, this Sancho is only an imagined copy of Quichotte himself - another great opportunity wasted by this esteemed writer.But does Rushdie attempt to re-write the classic in the first place? Well, I don‘t know, but the evidence is there. TV for knights‘ books, an old car of a traveling salesman for Rocniante, Salma R for Dulcinea, the child for Sancho, the seemingly absurd quest for the lady, the various episodes in which Rushdie‘s Quichotte tries his wit on other people or foreign situations...it‘s all there. Even the first remarks about the different spellings of the classic in various languages point this way (they are only the first examples of over-cleverness by the author).As I mentioned, I put this book aside after a quarter, perhaps a third through. It is a waste of time. The book isn‘t funny, the main characters are as papern as the book itself, and Rushdie shining through all the time trying to be overly clever and informed. Go for the original, dear reader, that one will live forever, this book (Rushdie‘s Quichotte) you will forget as soon as you close the cover.Finally, what I found disappointing as well is the revival of some ideas from Midnight‘s Children - whatitsname is back only slightly disguised. I hope to read another fine book by Rushdie in the near future. I am big fan, but this one just doesn‘t cut it.