It took me a while to get into the flow of Rushdie's very precise, high-fallutin' language and the strange story arc, but I became addicted and really loved this strange, creative work. The reader was very enthusiastic and entertaining.
Midnight's Children is beautifully written and, while I agree that the narrator may overdo it sometimes, the reading works very well for me, transports me to another world.
But nearly halfway into it, I'm thinking: OK, but so what? So far there have been a string of character studies -- beautiful character studies, to be sure -- all intertwined and related with one another, but ... where's the narrative? Is something happening? Is there a story here somewhere?
So far, it's mostly form with very little content. So this would be an amusing book for those who are content with character vignettes, and less so for those of us who appreciate a bit of plot.
I am at that half a century mark in years. I enjoy audiobooks,cats,rats and most days my family,not necessarily in that order!lol
This is a good book...if you can get by all the twists and turns to understand what is going on.I love Rushdies books but this one left me wonder 'WHAT was that about' long after reading it.
The narrorator was great!
Out of all his books I wonder how THIS one got picked to be a movie.
Abstract and narrated in a dialect I couldn't understand that reminded me of all of the bad computer help desk voices. This book just did NOT work for me. I didn't like it on any level. A total waste of time.
The birth of India sounds significant the way the narrator reads it. That's appropriate, but he uses the same tone for the (copious) description of the child's (copious) snot, for instance. I made it through the first third of the book before giving it up with India still in it's youth.
If you want an action focused story, you won't like this writer. If you like unique characters in fantastic situations with a rambling free form structure, Rushdie is worth the effort. At the beginning I found myself wanting to go read John Irving's Son of the Circus instead (one of my favorites), but I stuck with it and I am glad. I understand why Rushdie is heralded as a great writer in the tradition of Dickens. But it does take some effort, it's not a casual read. On the up side, it isn't the violent, pointless depressing roller coaster ride of so much current fiction. I will be reading more of Rushdie's fiction. The narration is very enjoyable as well. Regarding pronunciation, please don't make the mistake of thinking that the typical American pronunciation is "correct". The different pronunciation is British, not a narrator mistake.
Since I'm certain that Rushdie is an amazing author, I will suppose that my taste is what is at fault here. It was tedious, random, had many difficult to remember names of characters and places, and was not unlike listening to a friend's demented grandfather ramble on (and on and on) about places and events you've never heard of.
This is not an easy read, but I was glad to do it and sometime want to listen again. The use of language is wonderful and I loved the accent of the reader. Some of the descriptions go on and on, and sometimes it is hard to follow - but overall it is lush, funny and very creative. I found that the wikipedia synopsis was helpful to understand the historical significance.
My husband read it and I listened to it, and we both thought it was a great book.
No, the book is an extremely slow read. Gets very boring at times
I will definitely try one of his other books.
I have read a lot of great reviews for some of his books, and would want to try out more of his books!
The main character was my favorite
I liked Rushdie's Shalimar the Clown - I did NOT like this book and it will probably be the last Rushdie I will read/listen to. The story tries too hard, the reader tries too hard. It's as if all the energy is directed towards telling the reader "this is funny," and it isn't. It's forced.