Rating: 
Summary: Rushdie's 'Midnight's Children' reaches marvelous heights...
Review: It is to be understood that Salman Rushdie's 'Midnight's Children' stands free and clear from national associations, in the way that Hemingway's 'The Sun Also Rises' stands free and clear, and in the same way that Dickens's 'Great Expectations' stands free and clear from such associations. If anything, we should judge them from national, cultural perspectives only sparingly. Such works belong to a rare group which simply defeat cultural bounds.Whether the reader is an Indian, Pakistani, Englishman, American, or otherwise, the novel stands upon its own merit. What Rushdie achieves is stupendous. The language is fascinatingly brilliant, and sparkles at every turn. So, too, is the genius of his plotting; the story is always fresh, never unexpected, despite its basis in historical fact. The Indian who dismisses its plot for its political implications is sorrowfully missing the heart of the book; the Englishman who judges the book on the basis of its faithfulness to real events and actual situations certainly misses the full impact of the novel. What Rushdie does is a re-creation of the novel form; he takes the novel, rooted in English tradition, and re-forms it in the half-light of Indian history. If we are able to judge Rushdie and "Midnight's Children" as literature, and not as political-cultural testimony, we can truly appreciate its achievement. It is one of the greatest novels written in a long, long time. The Booker Prize, whether it be enough to justify the novel or not, is almost an adequate judgement of the book. Fifty years from now, when students of Indian history and politics look back on the late 1900s, they might not think much of "Midnight's Children." Fifty years from now, when students of literature look back on the late 1900s, they will inevitably think of Salman Rushdie and the achievement of "Midnight's Children."
Rating: 
Summary: Clever, but not a great novel
Review: My explanation for two- and five- star ratings for the book is just the opposite of what an earlier review surmised. I believe it is 5-star by those people who know India/Pakistan only superficially and so assume that Rushdie is on to something; it also includes the Macaulayites or those Indians/Pakis who have learned about it secondhand from English books. Often the word-play, puns, or etymologies used by Rushdie don't make sense.
Rating:
Summary: A mixed bag...
Review: Flipping through the reviews, I was amazed at the number of two and five star reviews. I came up with a possible explanation : either reviewers were Indian or very familiar with Indian culture (5), or they were not, and found the subtleties of Rushdie's language and the culture too difficult to negotiate (2). The book is a masterpiece, but requires a serious investment in getting to know India. If you fall in the first category of reviewer, it is a must read. If you are less familiar with Indian culture, you will still marvel at the beatiful language, but be prepared to be a little left out of the inside jokes.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful as well as haunting
Review: Rushdie has such a mastery of language as well as imagination. Midnight's Children is complex yet draws the reader into it's world. This world is not only beautiful but is full of very human emotions and their flaws. Rushdie's characters are full of life and this book is wonderful.
Rating:
Summary: Every book I have read after this one, has been a let down.
Review: A rich and colourful book that takes you into a fantasy and mystical world. English may be Salman Rushide's second language, but he has mastered it better than most contemporary writers. I cannot read another book after Midnight's Children with as much excitment. It is a must read for anyone. A Booker Prize for literature is nto enough. I nominate it for the Pulitzer.
Rating:
Summary: Pretentious nonsense; beautiful scenery
Review: For a book that has received so much praise this is maddeningly self-indulgent. Rushdie details the struggles of partitioning and the development of India with fantastic skill but the main plot is too self-aware. In any other guise this might be described as fantasy but, of course, it is too worthy to be listed as such. Tiresome in the extreme despite the poetic nature of the prose, this is one to read if you want to show off at dinner parties.
Rating:
Summary: Unique novel, Unique writing style
Review: Clearly one of the best English-language novels of the 20th century. Topical yet timeless. The writing style and plot are interwoven in a way that is impossible to describe. The narrative operates on multiple levels more succesfully than any other novel I have read. Took 6 years to write, so don't expect to read it in a few days. Can be re-read over and over like no other novel.
Rating:
Summary: Feckless like the anglicized Indians that it represents
Review: It is a strange thing that the modern elites of India are unconnected to their own civilization and for them impressing the westerner is the most important task. Rushdie is the perfect example of such an Indian. For an authentic view of India we must still turn to V.S. Naipaul.
Rating:
Summary: A clever book, a bit too clever!
Review: The book is a allegorical polemic, done in great style. It has flashes of brilliance and very clever passages. But ultimately, it fails to transcend the contortions of its plot to great, universal literature.
Rating:
Summary: A cartoon epic
Review: The book is too extravagant. The word play is often totally baseless (such as dung-lotus for Padma), although Western readers may not be knowledgable enough about the background to know that, and the racy plot has scenes like in a cartoon book. Very clever but certainly not literature that will stand the test of time. Rushdie's `Satanic Verses' is a much better novel.
| 
