The Jaguar Smile : A Nicaraguan Journey

Rating:
Summary: Literary snapshots with political bite
Review: "The Jaguar Smile," Salman Rushdie's record of his 1986 visit to Nicaragua, is a fascinating work with great value as an intellectual and historical document. The book is divided up into chapters, each of which stands alone as a unified and satisfying essay. The book as a whole paints an ironic portrait of Nicaraguan life during the Sandinista revolution.

Rushdie makes no claim to be objective; he is sympathetic to the Sandinista government and recalls being given cordial official greetings by some of the major Sandinista figures. But despite this affinity, Rushdie doesn't hesitate to cast a critical, and even satirical, eye on what he sees. In particular, he is wary of the Sandinista policy of press censorship: "[W]hat worries me is that censorship is very seductive. It's so much easier than the alternative."

Rushdie's keen powers of observation take in many of the institutions and personalities of Nicaragua, and he offers pungent insights on some of the racial, linguistic, political, and aesthetic issues facing the nation. "The Jaguar Smile" is particularly fascinating when Rushdie writes of his encounters with such eminent Nicaraguan authors as Gioconda Belli and Sergio Ramirez; reading Rushdie's accounts made me eager to seek out books by these writers.

Rushdie's prose--often amiable, occasionally cynical--is a pleasure to read. "The Jaguar Smile" is neither a comprehensive history of Nicaragua nor an unambiguous political manifesto, and should not be viewed as such. But as a skilled writer's record of his impressions of a nation at a crossroads in its history, this book is an impressive achievement.

Rating:
Summary: How can Salman Rushdie "understand" Nicaragua?
Review: Here we go again. In the mid-80s, Nicaragua was full of Internationalists, who were dedicated socialists and communists from wealthy countries with wealthy backgrounds, "sacrificing" by living in houses formerly owned by the upper and upper middle classes and stolen by the Sandinistas. They ran their Air-conditioners full blast, used expensive resources, and never had to pay a penny. All courtesy of the corrupt Sandinista government that was using them to help win the media war in the US, Canada, and Western Europe.

The "treatment", as it was known in Sandinista circles, was also applied to media dignitaries. Although they did not benefit from free housing, they were put up in the best hotel in Managua, chauffered around, and "given-access" to charismatic revolutionaries in exchange for favorable reviews.

Salman Rushdie, while a fantastic writer, is not an expert in Nicaraguan politics, or history. While mildly critical of the Sandinistas, he fell for the charm of some of their leaders. He gathered information that he felt represented reality in Nicaraguan life, and then wrote about it. Unfortunately, this representation is completely skewed, and misses the points of Nicaraguan history.

Canadians, how would you like to have Mr. Rushdie spent 6 weeks in your country, and then tell you how the country should split up?

Americans, how would you like Rushdie to spend 6 weeks in Washington and then tell you that you should not retailiate for the Sept. 11 attacks?

As proposterous as that sounds, that is exactly the point of his book when it came to Nicaraguan politics in the mid 1980s.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written but inevitably lacking
Review: I "saved" this book for several years, thinking it would be another Rushdie book to savour. When I finally read it, I felt that it was mere journalism, OK, maybe well-written journalism, but.... I did not find the flavour of Central America (though I have never been to Nicaragua), but rather the observations of a keen mind in a situation that was quite unfamiliar. The resulting book, I fear, shows that unfamiliarity. I thought, "Yes, Rushdie, from another Third World country with a certain style of contradiction, would understand Nicaragua and the revolutionary process with a special eye." I think the latter (process) turned out to be largely true, but not the former (Nicaragua). I would recommend this book to all authors who might feel that they could produce an excellent book on a place they know little about. Travel writers are excused, because they write about travel, not necessarily deep insights. But a major novelist ? I thought it would be better.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written but inevitably lacking
Review: I "saved" this book for several years, thinking it would be another Rushdie book to savour. When I finally read it, I felt that it was mere journalism, OK, maybe well-written journalism, but.... I did not find the flavour of Central America (though I have never been to Nicaragua), but rather the observations of a keen mind in a situation that was quite unfamiliar. The resulting book, I fear, shows that unfamiliarity. I thought, "Yes, Rushdie, from another Third World country with a certain style of contradiction, would understand Nicaragua and the revolutionary process with a special eye." I think the latter (process) turned out to be largely true, but not the former (Nicaragua). I would recommend this book to all authors who might feel that they could produce an excellent book on a place they know little about. Travel writers are excused, because they write about travel, not necessarily deep insights. But a major novelist ? I thought it would be better.

Rating:
Summary: Book, subject even more so, deserves reevaluation
Review: I just saw a film on present-day Nicaragua, a country that's no longer flavour of the month, at least as far as the world's press is concerned. It's been at least 15 years since I've read this book. I liked it fairly well then, and feel that, though Rushdie might have been a bit too kind to the Sandinistas (who deserve much of the criticism they received) the fact that Nicaragua was robbed blind by Somoza (who stole relief money for the earthquake that hit Managua in the 1970s)and, it seems, by the penultimate president, Aleman (convicted of financial wrongdoings but certainly not jailed)gives the Sandinistas' programs (redistribution of land,literacy, and the equal participation of women in Nicaraguan life)some credibility.

Rating:
Summary: Salman and the Sandinistas
Review: In 1986, the seventh year of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and three years before he got a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini, Salman Rushdie visited Nicaragua, travelling to Managua, Camaopa, celebrating the seventh anniversary of the revolution, and the Blue Fields area near the Atlantic Coast. I originally bought this book when I was interested in finding any of Salman Rushdie's books. I found it mildly interesting. This past winter, I took an upper division History of Central America at Fort Lewis College and after learning more about the Somozas and the Nicaraguan Revolution, I dug up Rushdie's book and one, it made more sense, two, I was more intrigued than merely interested.

Rushdie introduces the background to the Nicaraguan revolution that forced Anastasio Somoza Debayle's resignation in 1979 and even goes into the background of Augusto Sandino, the nationalist rebel leader executed by Anastasio Somoza Garcia's Guardia Nacional, and the Somoza dynasty that lasted forty years.

Rushdie got to meet some of the big nine Sandinista leaders, including President Daniel Ortega, vice president Sergio Ramirez, and agriculture minister Jaime Wheelock. However, they justify press censorship because they are at war with the Contras and America, and any press sympathetic to the US will undermine the regime. Seems reasonable, as the U.S. funding of Contras and the mining of Managua's harbours were acts of war by the U.S.

Not only are the Contras portrayed as terrorists, but Reagan isn't seen in a favourable light, understandably. Rushdie writes "Scarecrow Ronald Reagans hung--by the neck--from roadside trees." And in Ortega's speech to the people of Esteli, "Quien es culpabile?" the people roar back: "Reagan!" Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto even recalls a conversation with a Reagan administration official who tells him "Just do as we (the U.S.) say," serving as a reminder of U.S. hegemony in Central America and its refusal to abide by the Hague judgment, which ruled that the U.S. contra aid and force was a violation of international law.

Rushdie also visits Bluefields, where there are Miskito, Sumo, and Rama indigenes alienated by first the Somozas and the Sandinistas. One tragedy is that there are only 23 Ramas left and any attempt to preserve their language is hampered by the fact that many of them have few teeth, putting the mockers on proper enunciation. One of the people he meets is Mary Ellsberg, daughter of Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers, who is totally sympathetic to the plight of the indigenes there.

Rushdie's interview with Violeta Chamorro, widow of La Prensa editor Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, and later to be elected president, reveals Ms. Chamorro as someone who tries to manipulate a few facts and is biased against Ortega--she claims that Ortega was not elected democratically and yet according to foreign observers and an 80% voter turnout, he was. Rushdie agrees that yes, it was wrong for the Sandinistas to shut down La Prensa, but he questions Chamorro's candour.

As in his books, Rushdie writes with a wry, sometimes humorous style prevalent in his best novels. e.g. "my breakfast of rice and beans--'gayo pinto,' it was called 'painted rooster'--began to crow noisily in my stomach." Or when joining the foreign volunteer workers in singing "we shall overcome," he says "Like so many people who absolutely can't sing, I get sentimental about old tunes; the lump in the throat provides an excuse for the painful fractured noises emerging from the mouth." But his lyrical writing found in Satanic Verses and Midnight's Children also shines through.

This book is definitely critical of the Reagan administration's policies, but it paints an even-handed view of the Sandinistas, listing their ideals while at the same time detailing repressive measures that would not have been implemented had U.S. anti-communist paranoia not led to funding the Contras.

Rating:
Summary: Travel Writing With an Edge
Review: Salman Rushdie was invited to visit Nicaragua in July 1986, while that country was embroiled in a messy diplomatic row with Reagan's USA, and the revolution held so dear was in the process of eating up its own people. Rushdie discovered a land cluttered with ghosts and poets, a government which he felt he could believe in like no other, and a plethora of experiences which he collected and published in this book.

This is travel writing with a philosophical, literary, and politically informed edge. Rushdie is an astute critic; with an eye trained in revolutionary and poverty-stricken India and Pakistan, he observes the state of Nicaragua with an optimistic, yet realist gaze. In reading the book, one can sense the affinity Rushdie had with Chatwin; both writers have a gift of a cool, yet human eye, able to see more than what they were perhaps intended to by their 'hosts'. This writing reads like a novel, a collection of essays, and an autobiography. For in telling his tales, Rushdie reveals plenty about himself and his own understanding of life, politics, art, as well as his own perceived place in the world.

Rating:
Summary: Salman's visit to Latinamerica
Review: This is a good book with a original perspective of the story of Nicaragua. Even though Rushdie is a notable critic of the Sandinista government, he feels attracted by the Sandinista's fight and ideas. He manages throughout the story to mention thoughts and points of view from other local thinkers and poets.

Rating:
Summary: Ducks and drakes, plus redeeming features
Review: This lively but sketchy little book by Salman Rushdie, fired from the hip after a three-week stay as an official guest in 1986, needs putting into some less jacket-blurb perspective.

I first read The Jaguar Smile in 1987, at the start of a sustained and continuing association with Nicaragua. What a good introduction, I thought as the plane approached Managua, and certainly an easy read. Several years and many such approaches later, on rereading it as something of a "Nicarologist", I was struck only by the inevitable flimsiness, the froth, the ducks-and-drakes treatment. Since I found the book otherwise hard to fault substantially, I fretted about small things. If he has to Hispanicize Christopher Columbus in the opening sentence, why call him Cristoforo - instead of Cristóbal - Colón? Why hasn't someone bothered to comb out other blemishes in the Spanish he sprinkles around? Why does he place the battle of Pancasán in 1974 instead of 1967? Even the odd tautology and cliché jarred on me: Tomás Borge described as a "tiny" gnome; "the might of Somoza's tanks"; "The young men in the [hospital] wards were all gung-ho, all volubly starry-eyed about the revolution (...) and all super-keen to return to the fray".

Of course there is much that does full justice to Rushdie. And much to ponder on, including a reference in the first chapter, well in advance of the February 1989 fatwa, to "(...) another, faraway martyr-culture, that of Khomeini's Iran, represented a fearsome warning (...)". People will clearly read the book more out of interest in Rushdie and his singular trajectory than for the now time-flaked information on Nicaragua.

All right, he gets a second star for his effective central message that Sandinista Nicaragua was an imperfect state in a true revolution.