Meow.
John Updike: “Why, oh why, did Salman Rushdie in his new novel call one of his major characters Maximilian Ophuls?”
Salman Rushdie: “A name is just a name. ‘Why, oh why … ?’ Well, why not? Somewhere in Las Vegas there’s probably a male prostitute called ‘John Updike’.”
Rushdie goes on: “The thing that disappointed me most about Updike is that he did not say in that review that he had just completed a novel about terrorism. He had to sweep me out of the way in order to make room for himself. I don’t subscribe to the very predominantly English admiration of Updike. If you take away Rabbit is Rich and Rabbit at Rest, and some of the short stories, there’s a lot of … slightly … garbage. Think of The Coup! The new one [Terrorist] is beyond awful. He should stay in his parochial neighbourhood and write about wife-swapping, because it’s what he can do.”
Boys will be boys, eh…
The whole story here.
:)
Oh, But I did like Shalimar the clown.
Comment by Kishore — October 19, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
Real classy. Men of letters.
Comment by km — October 19, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Though I haven’t read either Shalimar the Clown or Updike’s latest, I totally recommend of Terrorist by the inimitable James Wood in The New Republic.
Link: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060703&s=wood070306
Comment by shreeharsh — October 20, 2006 @ 1:03 pm