Abstract

The article presents a reconstruction and analysis of Salman Rushdie’s well-known book «The enchantress of florence». It is not entirely clear why it is so named, as the novel contains more significant figures, such as Emperor Akbar. The question is raised regarding the integrity of the artistic reality and the peculiarities of readers’ understanding of the novel. In connection with this problem, the author recalls his distinction between two ways of constructing a modern work of art: in the first, the artist recreates a world opposed to him (including, in some cases, himself, but as an alienated figure); in the second, he creates a reality that reflects the peculiarities of his own consciousness (this approach is termed “private realism”). It is proposed to carry out a reconstruction that allows one to understand the work of art in terms of how it is constructed, what its author wanted to say, whether it is possible to reconstruct what he was doing, whether his plan succeeded, what his creative process was like, and so on. The implementation of this program results in an analysis of the peculiarities of Rushdie’s personality, as well as a characterization of the main tasks he addresses (revitalizing history, entertaining readers, expressing his own convictions). Rushdie creates characters who live in two different realities—historical and contemporary—as a result of which history is partly distorted, and the characters acquire contradictory traits. The techniques used to create the novel’s artistic reality are analyzed in detail. The first technique is the identification of historical subjects with non-historical ones; the second is the author’s deliberate connection of plot lines; the third technique, widely used by Rushdie—and not only for linking different lines and realities, but also for his other two purposes (entertaining readers and expressing his own thoughts)—is magic and fantasy. The question of why many readers poorly understand The Enchantress of Florence is examined. There are two reasons here. One is connected with the very approach to understanding: readers begin reading Rushdie’s works believing they are dealing with an ordinary novel, whereas in fact it is a matter of the genre of private realism. The second reason lies in readers’ unpreparedness to work with such complex material, which presupposes the reconstruction of an integral work and reality based on the images, plot lines, themes, and other expressive means offered by the author.

Keywords

understanding, misunderstanding, work, artistic reality, plot, reconstruction, fairy tale, fantasy, fiction, history