The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey

by Salman Rushdie

“I did not go to Nicaragua intending to write a book, or, indeed, to write at but my encounter with the place affected me so deeply that in the end I had no choice.” So notes Salman Rushdie in his first work of nonfiction, a book as imaginative and meaningful as his acclaimed novels. In The Jaguar Smile , Rushdie paints a brilliantly sharp and haunting portrait of the people, the politics, the terrain, and the poetry of “a country in which the ancient, opposing forces of creation and destruction were in violent collision.” Recounting his travels there in 1986, in the midst of America’s behind-the-scenes war against the Sandinistas, Rushdie reveals a nation resounding to the clashes between government and individuals, history and morality.

Genres: Nonfiction, Travel, History, Politics, Memoir, India, War

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie is an Indian-born British and American novelist. His work often combines magic realism with historical fiction and primarily deals with connections, disruptions, and migrations between Eastern and Western civilizations, typically set on the Indian subcontinent. Rushdie's second novel, Midnight's Children (1981), won the Booker Prize in 1981 and was deemed to be "the best novel of all winners" on two occasions, marking the 25th and the 40th anniversary of the prize.
After his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), Rushdie became the subject of several assassination attempts and death threats, including a fatwa calling for his death issued by Ruhollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran. In total, 20 countries banned the book. Numerous killings and bombings have been carried out by extremists who cite the book as motivation, sparking a debate about censorship and religiously motivated violence. In 2022, Rushdie survived a stabbing at the Chautauqua Institution in Chautauqua, New York.
In 1983, Rushdie was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He was appointed a Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres of France in 1999. Rushdie was knighted in 2007 for his services to literature. In 2008, The Times ranked him 13th on its list of the 50 greatest British writers since 1945. Since 2000, Rushdie has lived in the United States. He was named Distinguished Writer in Residence at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute of New York University in 2015. Earlier, he taught at Emory University. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In 2012, he published Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of the events following The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in April 2023.
Rushdie's personal life, including his five marriages and four divorces, has attracted notable media attention and controversies, particularly during his marriage to actress Padma Lakshmi.

Reviews

[Petra X · Rating 2 out of 5]

I loved the breadth and brilliance of Rushdie's Midnight's Children, admired his clever, biting and sly portrait of Benazir Bhutto (the 'Virgin Ironpants') in Shame, was confused with the immature ramblings of Grimus, bored with the Satanic Verses, but to some extent sympathised with the author's viewpoint in The Jaguar Smile.

One of many anti-American, or at least pro-socialist, books that seeks to cast doubt on US involvement on foreign soil in the name of political freedom and the expansion of market, this one is also somewhat of a travelogue and occasionally entertaining. As in almost all Rushdie books, the reader is assumed to be well-read and to be able to catch all the literary allusions which so amuse the author himself, just as they did his hero James Joyce.

If you are a Rushdie afficianado then you will love this book, otherwise you might find its greatest virtue is its brevity.

[Henk · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting insight into Nicaragua, with the author bringing the optimism and fears in the country oost-revolution to live, but with sometimes a lack of journalistic detachment
It was like returning back to normal, but normality here was of a violent, exceptional type.

Salman Rushdie narrates a trip to Nicaragua in 1986. It is a country in full turmoil, with three generations of dictators just ousted and the revolutionary government being sanctioned by the US. Only three million people live in a country as large as Wales and England together.
The CIA budget under Reagan was annually USD 400 million to destabilize the country, led by its FSNL government.

In short sections a clear love for poetry becomes apparent and the people of the country seem genuine in their want for change and in their good intentions. But dark undertones of press censure are definitely present and not glossed over by the author.
Also the economical hardships are very clear, with the country importing three times more than exporting, making the economic sanctions of the US devastating, leading to 500% inflation and a 40% black market economy.
Just do as we say, and all your troubles will disappear is the summarised stance of the US, but the governors and ministers in their early 30s, propelled by the revolution, are not keen to back down.

The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey is a book that very well captures a time and a spirit of both apprehension and hope for the future. In the end developments didn't turn out as utopian or dystopian as feared, and it is fair to surmise that the common man in Nicaragua is not much helped in the end by grand visions of revolution and socialist change.

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting book by Rushdie about his travels to Sandinista-run Nicaragua in 1986 shortly after finishing Satanic Verses. It is an insiders look at this short-lived period of history that eventually led to the Noriega dictatorship and bloodshed. Not an essential part of his canon, it is nonetheless an interesting non-fiction book from Rushdie trying to see behind the propaganda of this particular world spotlight at the time with Reagan preparing to overthrow this socialist regime in the background.

[Harun Ahmed · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

"নিকারাগুয়ায়" তিনি বলেন,"প্রত্যেককেই কবি বলে বিবেচনা করা হয়, উল্টোটি প্রমাণিত না হওয়া পর্যন্ত।"
এই কবিদের দেশে সালমান রুশদি ভ্রমণ করেছিলেন ১৯৮৬ সালে, সমাজতন্ত্রী সান্দিনিস্তা বিপ্লবীদের চূড়ান্ত বিজয়ের সপ্তম বর্ষপূর্তিতে। যে দেশটির জীবিতদের বোঝার জন্য, লেখকের মনে হয়েছিলো, মৃতদের দিয়ে শুরু করা উচিত। কারণ "দেশটি প্রেতে পরিপূর্ণ ছিলো।" দীর্ঘ স্বৈরাচারী শাসনের ফলে দেশটিতে জমে উঠেছিলো লাশ আর কান্না। ছিলো অর্থনৈতিক, রাজনৈতিক আর মনস্তাত্ত্বিক নানান সমস্যা। রুশদি তার তিন সপ্তাহের সফরের অভিজ্ঞতা ও পর্যবেক্ষণ বর্ণনা করেছেন বইতে। খুব গভীর কোনো বই না। কিন্তু পড়তে পড়তে পাঠকের মনে হতেই পারে, পৃথিবীর সব বিপ্লব আর বিপ্লববিধ্বস্ত জনপদের গল্প কোনো এক অদৃশ্য জাদুবলে একই রকম হয়ে যায়, একই রকম নিয়তি বয়ে বেড়াতে হয় সবাইকে।

(১৬ মার্চ,২০২২)

[Paul Haspel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The jaguar is a big cat that is found only in Latin America, and it is as beautiful as it is dangerous. Such realities no doubt influenced novelist Salman Rushdie to give his 1987 memoir of a 1986 visit to wartime Nicaragua the title The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey. But the title also refers to a specific limerick that captures, for Rushdie, the paradoxical qualities of life in Nicaragua at the time he visited the country. We’ll get to the limerick a bit later, I promise.

For now, let it suffice to say that the Indian-born Rushdie has made a name for himself writing novels in which the real and the unreal (or surreal, or magically real) collide as surely as East and West meet. Originally, he was known simply for the excellence of his novels; Midnight’s Children not only won a Booker Prize in 1981 but has twice been declared the greatest Booker Prize honouree of all time!

But then Rushdie became part of the news, for a story that brought his name to people who wouldn’t have known Midnight’s Children from a midnight clearance event at Nordstrom Rack. His novel The Satanic Verses (1988) included a portrayal of the Muslim prophet Muhammad that some readers found irreverent; in response, the Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa against Rushdie, and the Islamist government of Iran placed a $3 million bounty on Rushdie’s head.

The author went into hiding, and whatever sense of relative safety may have accompanied Rushdie’s gradual emergence from high-security seclusion was shattered when a would-be assassin stabbed Rushdie at a Chautauqua Institution event in western New York State. Rushdie lost an eye and suffered other injuries, but survived.

What all of this adds up to, for me, is that Salman Rushdie is an author who has always told the truth, as he sees it, and has always stood up for the underdog. Perhaps it is for that reason that he was drawn to the Sandinista revolutionaries in Nicaragua in the mid-1980’s.

Seven years before Rushdie’s 1986 visit, the Sandinistas had accomplished the seemingly impossible in successfully overthrowing the dictator Anastasio Somoza, who had ruled Nicaragua through terror and tyranny since 1967. But the far-left leanings of the FSLN (the 𝘍𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘕𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 or Sandinista National Liberation Front) drew the disapproving attention of the Reagan Administration, who funded anti-communist “contra” rebels in a civil war against the Sandinista government, whilst allowing rumours of a possible U.S. military invasion to percolate throughout Central America. It was, to say the least, a tense and dangerous time in the region.

Rushdie’s impressions of wartime Nicaragua are vivid; and readers of novels like Midnight’s Children or The Satanic Verses may remark how his general thematic points are grounded in well-observed details of everyday life. At one point, for instance, Rushdie states that “There was a shortage of beans in Managua. (Imagine Italy running out of pasta.) Some days it was hard to get corn to make tortillas. Inflation was close to 500%, and prices had gone crazy. It could cost you six head of cattle to get your truck serviced” (p. 25).

Rushdie engages the difficult politics of the time, and offers this explanation for the growing friendship that he sees between the Sandinistas and the U.S.S.R.:

The New York Times, in a leader article, had just called the Sandinistas “Stalinists.” Stephen Kinzer, the paper’s man in Managua, had belatedly filed a report (without visiting the scene) on the most recent Contra atrocity, the mining of a road in northern Jinotega province, near Bocay. The mine had blown up a bus and killed thirty-two civilians, including several schoolchildren. Kinzer’s report suggested that the FSLN could have planted the mine itself, in a bid to gain international sympathy.

Pressure, and a phone call to Moscow. My enemy’s enemy becomes, eventually, my friend. (p. 25)

Rushdie’s attitude toward the Sandinistas is nuanced but unmistakably sympathetic. On the one hand, he disapproves strongly of the Sandinistas shutting down the La Prensa newspaper that has opposed Sandinista policies, stating that “I remained convinced that the FSLN’s policy of censorship was misconceived and dangerous” (p. 53). When a Sandinista official tells Rushdie that freedom of the press is something “cosmetic”, one can sense how dismayed Rushdie is at hearing such words.

And yet, on the other hand, Rushdie looks at Sandinista leaders like Daniel Ortega and asks himself, “Were these dictators in the making? Emphatically, no. They struck me as men of integrity and great pragmatism, with an astonishing lack of bitterness toward their opponents, past and present” (p. 52). And Rushdie’s attitude toward the Sandinista government of Nicaragua takes a turn that startles him:

For the first time in my life, I realized with surprise, I had come across a government I could support…because I wanted its efforts (at survival, at building the nation, and at transforming it) to succeed. It was a disorienting realization. I had spent my entire life as a writer in opposition, and had indeed conceived the writer’s role as including the function of antagonist to the state. I felt distinctly peculiar about being on the same side as the people in charge, but I couldn't avoid the truth: if I had been a Nicaraguan writer, I would have felt obliged to get behind the Frente Sandinista, and push. (p. 53)

And yet Rushdie is not simply carrying the water for the Sandinistas, or for the Soviets who are only too happy to cultivate the friendship of the Sandinista government. At one point, Rushdie engages in a public literary conversation with two Eastern European writers (one Soviet, one Bulgarian); both of the East European writers support Soviet censorship and dismiss Soviet dissident authors and works like Solzhenitsyn and The Gulag Archipelago. After the talk, Rushdie has a disheartening conversation with a Nicaraguan translator who helped facilitate the talk:

Later, one of the interpreters asked me a breathtaking question: “What’s a labour camp?”

“What’s a labour camp?” I echoed, disbelievingly.

“Oh, I can see what you’re trying to say it is,” she said. “Something like a concentration camp. But are you really saying they have such things in the Soviet Union?”

“Um,” I stumbled, “well, yes.”

“But how can it be?” she asked in obvious distress. “The U.S.S.R. is so helpful in Third World countries. How can it be doing things like this?” (p. 77).

From this conversation, Rushdie concludes that “There is a kind of innocence abroad in Nicaragua. One of the problems with the romance of the word ‘revolution’ is that it can carry with it a sort of blanket approval of all self-professed revolutionary movements.” And Rushdie recalls how “I wondered if Nicaragua’s ghosts would permit the living to make…distinctions” between legitimate and fraudulent “revolutionary” movements. “On the one hand, the romance of the dead; on the other, the great American fist. It could turn into quite a trap” (pp. 77-78).

I was glad to see that, during his visit, Rushdie left Managua and made a visit to the town of Bluefields on Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast – getting a chance, in the process, to experience Nicaragua’s cultural diversity. “In Bluefields, it was often difficult to remember I was still in Nicaragua. The west coast was racially homogeneous, but here, as well as mestizos, there were Creoles, three different Amerindian tribes, and even a small community of Garifonos [Garifuna]” (p. 96).

Yet while “The culture of Bluefields felt distinctly West Indian” (p. 96), Rushdie finds that the problems of war and revolution are just as apparent in Bluefields as in Managua. A development-agency worker from the U.S. shows Rushdie a computer shot and destroyed during a Contra attack on a supply boat, causing Rushdie to reflect that “the Contra are assassinating machines now” (p. 101).

And a poem written on a blackboard at the back of a Bluefields office room reminds Rushdie of the hyperpoliticized nature of the Nicaraguan society of that time:

LA REVOLUCIÓN

Se lleva en el corazón
para morir por ella,
y no en los labios
para vivir de ella…

After providing a helpful translation – “The revolution/is carried in the heart,/that it may be died for,/and not on the lips/that it may be lived by” – Rushdie reflects somberly that “Death was here, too. Death, the close friend. It was your child, your mother, your self. It was the invisible object that blotted out the world” (p. 107).

The Jaguar Smile takes its title from a limerick that Rushdie posts as a sort of epigram at the beginning of the book:

There was a young girl of Nic’ragua
Who smiled as she rode on a jaguar.
They returned from the ride
With the young girl inside
And the smile on the face of the jaguar.

(Pro tip: When reciting this limerick, pronounce “Nicaragua” and “jaguar” in the British rather than the U.S. manner. An Explanatory Pronunciation Endnote at the end of this review will go into more detail on this matter.)

Near the end of his Nicaraguan journey, Rushdie tells us, he had a nightmare about the jaguar of the limerick; and when he woke from his jaguar nightmare, he reflected that “the limerick, when applied to contemporary Nicaragua, was capable of both a conservative and a radical reading”. To wit:

If the young girl was taken to be the revolution, seven years old, fresh, still full of the idealism of youth, then the jaguar was geopolitics, or the United States; after all, an attempt to create a free country where there had been, for half a century, a colonized “back yard,” was indeed to ride a jaguar. That was the “leftist” interpretation; but what if the young girl were Nicaragua itself, and the jaguar was the revolution? Eh? What about that? (p. 129)

I read The Jaguar Smile on a visit to Nicaragua. Upon crossing the border from Costa Rica, I found that one of the first things I saw was a statue of Augusto César Sandino – the Nicaraguan revolutionary who led a rebellion against the U.S. occupation of Nicaragua from 1927 to 1933, and for whom the Sandinista party is named. Next to the Sandino statue was a large red-and-black FSLN flag, flapping in the breeze, its outer edges torn. Having lost power in 1990, the FSLN regained control of Nicaragua in the mid-2000’s; and Daniel Ortega, the young revolutionary firebrand of the 1980’s, is president once again, in his 80’s. There is widespread concern that Nicaragua is yet another country where movement toward democracy has been halted.

Yet the violence of the 1980’s is long over, and the visitor to Nicaragua can enjoy, in peace, the warmth and hospitality of the Nicaraguan people, along with delightful activities like boating on Lake Nicaragua (the birding on the lake is magnificent) and touring the gorgeous cathedrals and churches of Granada. There’s a nice little restaurant on the beach, at Playa la Virgen, where you can try the country’s strong and salty queso seco cheese; and for best results, mix your queso seco with the rice and beans that are a staple of every Nicaraguan meal.

From my brief visit to Nicaragua, I got a sense of Nicaragua as a land of both paradox and promise; and Salman Rushdie seems to have felt the same way about the country back in 1986, when he visited war-torn Nicaragua and gathered the impressions that eventually took shape as The Jaguar Smile.

Explanatory Pronunciation Endnote: When reciting the limerick that gives The Jaguar Smile its title, please note that Americans and Britons pronounce “Nicaragua” and “jaguar” differently. In the U.S., “Nicaragua” is pronounced “nick-uh-rogg-wuh,” and “jaguar” is pronounced “jagg-wahr” (except, perhaps, in parts of North Florida, where some fans of the NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars call them the “Jagg-wires”.

In Great Britain, by contrast, “Nicaragua” is pronounced “neek-uh-ragg-you-were”, and “jaguar” – whether one is referring to the big cat of Latin America, or to the fine British motorcar – is “jagg-you-were”. There! Now you can enjoy the limerick as Salman Rushdie no doubt originally heard it. I suppose my work here is done.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nicaragua, July 1986 - Rushdie's first nonfiction endeavor is my first Rushdie read. I can see why Christopher Hitchens liked him. In some ways, Rushdie reminds me of Hitchens. They're both well read, articulate, and can admire a thing while simultaneously being critical of it. Here, true to form, Rushdie is reverent but not without reservations.

"One didn't have to like people to believe in their right not to be squashed by the United States; but it helped, it certainly helped."

Like the majority of Americans in the first half of the 1980's, I was relatively oblivious to the Reagan administration's policy regarding Nicaragua. Even had I known, I most assuredly would not have lost any sleep over it. Central America was barely on the periphery of my sphere of concern. It was not until the 'Iran-Contra Affair' (1985 - 1987) that I took notice. The sad truth of it is that even then I cared very little one way or the other. In 1985 I still held on to the illusion* that our elected leaders had our best interests at heart, even if they had to sometimes ignore the rule of law to pursue those interests.

*The last shreds of that illusion spontaneously combusted in November, 2016.

If you are unfamiliar with 'Iran-Contra' suffice it to say that the CIA, with the full knowledge of the Reagan Administration, had arguably formed the Contra, a counter-revolutionary resistance force in Nicaragua, and then unarguably continued to fund them after congress, via the Boland Amendment, deemed it illegal and unconstitutional. They did so by selling arms to Khomeini's muslim fundamentalist regime in Iran, and then funneling the proceeds to the Contras.

"In a nearby village, the Contra had recently kidnapped more than two dozen children, many of them girls aged between ten and fourteen, 'for the use of the Contra fighters'... One girl had escaped and got home. The villagers had heard that five other children had escaped, but had been lost in the jungle. That was five weeks ago, and they had to be presumed dead. 'It's so sad going there now,' Mary said. 'The whole village just cries all the time'."

Is Salman Rushdie just a "communist stooge" (as conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has allegedly proclaimed), or is he a purveyor of truth? With over three decades to reflect on Rushdie's visit to Central America, I am seriously leaning toward the latter.

[Bob Newman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well-written but inevitably lacking

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.

[Gerhard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Salman Rushie reiste 1986 nach Nicaragua. Das Land befindet sich im Stadium nach einer Diktatur, bei Rauswurf die Staatskasse noch geplündert. Das kennt man so. Rushdie trifft Politiker und Dichter, teilweise sind sie es beides. Er schildert die Reise durch das Land und die sozialen Probleme. Wie wird es weiter gehen? Gut zu lesen.

[Irene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rushdie visited Nicaragua in 1986. He arrived with strong political leanings that favored the Sandinista efforts. His heart was with the peasant underclass, with the revolutionary poets and priests, with those who resisted the oppression and greed of the Samosa government and the policies of the US in Central America. I enjoyed Rushdie’s nonfiction writing much more than I have enjoyed any of his magical realism. Even if not an unbiased look at what was happening in Nicaragua in the mid-1980s, his championing of Nicaragua’s martyrs and suffering masses shines a needed light on many that history has forgotten. 3.5 stars

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't know much about Nicaragua or the Contra War of the 80s, as I was only in gradeschool at the time. I didn't pick this book up because I wanted to find out more about the topic either. I picked it up, because I thought it would a short novel I could finish off before the new year. I was the definition of a blank slate. Imagine my surprise when I realized that this was actually a work of non-fiction.

As a blank slate, I can't really rate this book based on how accurate Rushdie's depiction of the state of things was. I can only judge it on his prose, and his ability to explain what he is personally setting out to explain. On those terms, the book is very successful. I was very surprised that in such a brief work, I found myself comfortably knowledgable about most of the involved parties, including the Sandanistas, the east coast Misurasata, and various sects of the Contra movement. Rushdie's verdict in the end is an almost ambiguous one, coming hesitantly down on the side of the Sandanistas, with some reservations. Perhaps I'm naive, but his findings appeared to be the honest opinion of a neutral observer, and not any kind of liberal propaganda.

Outside of the politics, he also paints a picture of the citizens of the country, who are a resiliant and hopeful and poetic people. This jives pretty accurately with my impressions of various Central American friends from college, and the stories they shared about their lives.

Now, this book was written in 1987, and as a glimpse at that particular moment of time, I think this book is very effective. Rushdie sees a certain righteousness in the Sandanista movement, but warns that with power comes certain temptations, and admits that the leaders he met with were questionably equipped to deal with those temptations. The title, in fact, comes from a limerick in which a little girl wearing a smile rides away on a jaguar. When she returns, the girl is gone, and now the jaguar is wearing the smile. Far from being propaganda, Rushdie awknowledges with his title that the politics of Nicaragua are dangerous and ambiguous. History would show that neither the Sandanistas or the Contras or even the Americans who became involved turned out to be truely just in their actions.

But I guess that's always the way when politics and religion are concerned: people frequently end up doing the wrong things for the what they feel are the right reasons. "The Jaguar Smile" captures that pretty succinctly.

[Jan · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 1986, the Indian writer Salman Rushdie traveled to Nicaragua. In this book, he recounts his journey. He spoke with many people, both farmers and other citizens, as well as leading figures. This is my first encounter with the country. My impression is that it is a country of contradictions, one that, from a revolutionary background, is seeking democratization—there's a chapter devoted to the creation of the constitution—and is trying to distance itself from the US. At the end, there's a chapter emphasizing the theme of censorship; it turns out that nuanced views are possible on this topic as well. Rushdie offers a fairly multifaceted picture, albeit not from the perspective of the so-called contras, who were still engaged in a guerrilla war with the Sandinistas in 1986. So many names are mentioned, it makes my head spin. This is travel literature that, unlike most travel books I've read, doesn't focus so much on tourism and/or landscapes, but rather on a political and social perspective. It's valuable to learn about, or rather, get an introduction to, Nicaragua from an informed foreigner. JM

[Elizabeth (Alaska) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rushdie spent 3 weeks in Nicaragua in 1986. The Sandanistas rose up against the brutal Somoza regime in 1979. The Sandanistas had won their revolution only to have a segment of the population - the Contras - try to keep them from governing. I do remember this period in history, but more because of the US backing the Contras, and the ensuing scandal. I understand that we did not want yet another Communist country in our backyard, but we should just keep our nose out of another country's internal struggles.

There is a Preface to the 1997 edition in the Kindle edition I read. Rushdie comments that he got some backlash over this from both the Left and the Right. I found that interesting and was happy to read where Rushdie found it possible to criticize both sides, though he found plenty of praise for the efforts of the Sandanistas. Rushdie spent more time with the Sandanistas, but did talk to a couple of people who did not back them, though not to any of the Contras themselves. This did not quite make it balanced, but I appreciated what effort he made in this regard.

This short memoir was very interesting. Shame on me for not having read Salman Rushdie before, but the writing style in this had me wishing I had. Of course, a memoir and a novel are entirely different. I can hope Rushdie might have relied on his novel writing style in this memoir. I think this is 4-stars, but perhaps not strongly so.

[Celia · Rating 4 out of 5]

No 110 in my Reading the World Journey

Country Nicaragua

The Jaguar Smile is Salman Rushdie's first full-length non-fiction book, which he wrote in 1987 after visiting Nicaragua. The book is subtitled A Nicaraguan Journey and relates his travel experiences, the people he met as well as views on the political situation then facing the country. The book was written during a break the author took from writing his controversial novel, The Satanic Verses.

After a period of political and economic turmoil under dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle, the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (commonly known by the initial FSLN or as the Sandinistas) came to power in Nicaragua in 1979 supported by much of the populace and elements of the Catholic church. The government was initially backed by the U.S. under President Jimmy Carter, but the support evaporated under the presidency of Ronald Reagan in light of evidence that the Sandinistas were providing help to the FMLN rebels in El Salvador.

Rushdie's three-week trip to Nicaragua in the summer of 1986 was at the invitation of Sandinista Association of Cultural Workers which was billed as, "the umbrella organisation that brought writers, artists, musicians, craftspeople, dancers and so on, together under the same roof".

I appreciated both Rushdie's candid appraisal of the situation as well as his trips to both the Pacific and the Caribbean Coast.

4 stars

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jag....

[Kate Savage · Rating 4 out of 5]

A slim little book about Salman Rushdie visiting Nicaragua 7 years after the revolution. I'm a sucker for writers who are trying to be skeptical about a revolution but sort of fall for it anyway. Recommended reading if you've forgotten how awful the U.S.-backed Contras were.

[Bogdan Constantin · Rating 4 out of 5]

O carte-reportaj despre istoria recentă a unei țări pline de poezie și moarte- Nicaragua.

[Amber · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este fue el primer libro de Salman Rushdie que habia leido. Me llamó la atención porque habia visitado Nicaragua un par de meses antes de que lo econtrara en una librería en San Salvador. Entonces, no lo leí por el autor sino el tema.
Este libro consiste de sus entrevistas y observaciones del gobierno Nicaraguense en la época de la guerra civil. Sin embargo, si piensas que el Sr. Rushdie es periodista, este libro te va a decepcionar porque a veces parece que el autor tiene predisposición hacia el gobierno sandanista de Nicaragua -- aunque lucha justificar la censura de la prensa. Es interesante leer ante todo porque Daniel Ortega que era presidente en las ochenta cuando se escribió el libro es presidente hoy en dia (después de un periódo largo de no ser presidente). Entonces, éste es un ejemplo en Centroamérica en el cual los revolucionarios ganaron, se convertieron en políticos, y siguieron participando en el proceso democrático. (También, es el caso en El Salvador, pero el FMLN solo acaba de ganar la presidencia en 2009...) Estes ejemplos de ex-guerrilleros que llegan al poder me interesan mucho mas que nada porque quiero que los revolucionarios demuestren una manera más humanitaria de gobernar. Lo confieso, quiero creer en ellos, pero primero necesito ver las promesas cumplidas. En Nicaragua, hasta el momento, no tengo muchas quejas pero entiendo que hay mucho más que hacer.
La otra cosa que me interesó mucho fue aprender de la involucramiento de los EEUU en la guerra civil de Nicaragua. Por supuesto, ya lo sabía, pero todavía es increíble pensar en la situación -- pequeñita Nicaragua contra los EEUU! Aunque los EEUU finaziaron a la Contra, todavía no puedo creer que no atacaran el país directamente con el ejército americano. (Gracias a dios no pasó.) El temor del comunismo en ese época era tan exagerado...
Al fin, fue el contexto que me gustó en este libro, no la redacción del Sr. Rushdie. Pero lo recomiendo porque todo de nosotros deben tratar de comprender la historia que Centroamérica lastimosamente ha vivido.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

This isn't a badly written book by any means. Rushdie is, of course, a great writer, and when he's describing the nonpolitical people and places he visited in Nicaragua it's an interesting book. But what he had to say in this book overall really bugged me. I read it along with Kinzer's book about Nicaragua, "Blood of Brothers", and Kinzer has profoundly different things to say about the Sandinistas than does Rushdie. At one point, he actually mocks and criticizes an unfavorable story about the Sandinistas written by Kinzer for the NY Times. This was particularly obnoxious considering Kinzer had been living in Managua for a really long time, and Rushdie was there for all of about 3 weeks. (Yeah, he wrote a book about a country he'd been in for 3 weeks) In the intro to this book, Rushdie notes that while appearing on a radio show in the US while promoting the book the conservative host (maybe Limbaugh?) asked how long he'd been a "Communist stooge". Sadly, after reading this book, I nearly agree with that radio host.

Rushdie seems so naive in this book. He comes off as a mouth-piece for the Sandinistas. He rightly speaks of the horrible things the American-backed Contras did during the war. But he finds ways to apologize for everything the Sandinistas did. History has very much proven that the Sandinistas weren't great people. They imprisoned, tortured, and also executed their opposition. They stifled dissent and free expression. I don't blame Rushdie for wanting to see a revolution in Central America succeed. I'm very much disgusted by all the Reagan administration did in Nicaragua myself. But give me a break, Rushdie should have been a little more evenhanded here with the criticism. Instead, this book comes off as a long love letter to the Sandinistas.

[Jolanta (knygupė) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Knyga - S. Rushdie keliones i sandinistine Nicaragua 1986-iais prisiminimai.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Halusin lukea Nicaraguasta ja tämä oli ainoa kirja, jonka Helmetistä löysin. Vuonna 1980-luvulla maassa oli, ainakin Rushdien näkökulmasta, toiveikas ilmapiiri. Noin 40 vuotta myöhemmin on surullista havaita, ettei Nicaragualle käynyt hyvin.

”Kun olin taas huvilassani, vuoret näyttivät iltavalossa niin rauhanomaisilta, että oli vaikea uskoa niillä väijyvään vaaraan. Nicaraguassa piili usein hirviö kauniin ulkokuoren alla.”

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I discovered this in the Latin America section in Stanfords, quite unaware that Salman Rushdie had written it, and central America was somewhere I have always wanted to travel around.

Rusdie’s trip of three weeks was made at the invitation of the Sandinista Association of Cultural workers and he was there at the seven year anniversary of the Sandinista’s rise to power. While there he conversed with the President, Daniel Ortega, ministers (most of whom are poets) the owner of the recently closed La Prensa newspaper, aid workers and a midwife and her cow.

Nicaragua, which Rushdie clearly falls in love with, is portrayed very much as the little guy standing up to the big ;un (The US under Reagan) as the revolutionary government is besieged by the Contra and it’s backers. It’s always hard to tell just how truthful or unbiased narratives like this are. But to be fair to El Escritor hindu, as he is known, he does not shy away from asking fairly probing questions where he can, and presses the government on it’s closure of La Prensa numerous times, and he admits failings in the book of people who he didn’t get to interview.

It’s a slim book. Rushdie articulately mixing in facts with bits of his journeys around the country and his conversations with those in power and those without. The Jaguar Smile should be seen as a postcard, a snapshot of a time and a place, a place that I myself long to go.
(blog review here)

[Cristina Braia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Prima data după ce am văzut coperta, am crezut ca este o carte cu basme, pentru copii. După ce am citit descrierea am bănuit ca voi găsi o poveste emoționantă trăită in Nicaragua anului 1986.
Când am început sa o citesc, gândul m-a dus la un roman istoric.
Dar se pare ca niciuna dintre variantele de mai sus nu este adevărata, dar nici in totalitate falsa.
Autorul Salman Rushdie pleacă intr-o calatorie in Nicaragua, o țara frământată de revolte, dictatura, sărăcie și speranta intr-o lume mai buna.
Sincer, nu am mai citit nimic despre acest autor, dar dacă toate cărțile lui sunt scrise in aceasta maniera, nu cred ca voi citi prea curând alta opera.
Autorul dorește ca aceasta carte sa fie un jurnal personal in care își exprima, printre altele, preferințele muzicale, talentul artistic și, in același timp, un mini-roman istoric - o combinație fatală din punctul meu de vedere.
Evenimentele nu au o așezare cronologica, fragmentele nu au nicio explicatie pentru aranjarea haotica, decât simplul fapt ca autorul a intrat atunci in posesia lor( de exemplu: in timpul călătoriei spre un oraș), redandu-le exact așa, fără a depune un minim efort pentru a le aranja.
Apoi, discuțiile cu “campesinos” despre literatura au fost redate doar pentru a glorifica țările dezvoltate ale Americii. In niciun caz pentru descrierea culturii locale.
Cât a baut autorul, faptul ca a amestecat romul cu Coca Cola și apoi s-a dus afara sa cânte, cât de credincios sau nu era, ce talent si ce voce avea etc, toate acestea subliniază latura de “jurnal personal” a cărții. Chiar cred ca puteam trai și fără aceste detalii, eventual le puteam citi intr-o opera autobiografica.
Nu mi-a plăcut romanul deloc dar am aflat informații interesante despre țara cu cel mai mare deficit de locuitori din America.

[Dolf van der Haven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Around-the-world #143: Nicaragua 🇳🇮.
A rare non-fiction work by Salman Rushdie, the author is invited to visit Nicaragua under the Sandinist government (in 1986, at the time of the US supprt for the Contras) , hangs out with various people of power, tries to be neutral and critical, but cannot hide his sympathy for the (Communist?) government.
Even though this is excellently written, it feels too much like random snapshots taken by a tourist. I like his novels better.

[Peyton Doyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just wish he was there longer so I could’ve read more

[Horia Bura · Rating 4 out of 5]

A surprisingly good little book about the post-Somoza era Nicaragua, ruled by the leader of the „Frente Sandinista”, Daniel Ortega. Rushdie's visit to this country comes at the height of the war between the Sandinista power and the Contras troops and ends up with this volume, which depicts a Latin American country in which: almost everyone is or, at least has the character of a poet; the authorities accept the financial and material aid of the USSR and Cuba, but they are reluctant to enforce typical communist measures; the confrontations with the US-funded Contras troops are so frequent that they seem to have become somewhat of a banality.

To sum up, an interesting and engaging read by which Rushdie proves that he is a very good writer also of observational non-fiction, not only of memorable novels.

[Patrick Strickland · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.45/5 stars rounding down. I read this book twice, about ten years apart. I remembered liking it and decided to pick it up again. I found parts of it interesting, but Rushdie's skilled fiction prose rarely rears its head in this nonfiction book. His politics here make sense and are mostly reasonable, but there's little scenery other than him hobnobbing with politicians and poets (many of whom are also politicians in revolutionary Nicaragua). Still, the book is worth reading if you would like to read a great novelist's takes on a 1980s conflict in which an embattled country tries to carve out a space free from American interference. And there are a few interesting scenes, scarce though they are.

[Tammy Dayton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was a child in the 80s during the Contra years with Nicaragua and President Reagan. This expose opened my eyes to the unwanted involvement of US in the development of a new government. The author is clearly anti-American which he was very upfront in saying at the beginning. I could clearly see his bias. Apparently, there were three groups, America supported the Contra, which was kidnapping young men to be soldiers. Then Cuba and SU was sending monetary support to Sandinistas. And the third group were just wanting to be left alone in order to build their own nation. I think Rushdie did an amazing job sharing the feelings of ordinary Nicaraguans and the powerful Nicaraguans. This is definitely not a book I would recommend to the patriotic.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Especially meaningful for me because I was in Nicaragua the same year as Salman Rushdie, so he reminds me of much and brings back memories.

[Debashish Chakrabarty]

সালামান রুশদি নিকারাগুয়ায় গিয়ে পৌঁছুতে পৌঁছুতে বিপ্লবের সাত বছর পেড়িয়ে গেছে। এখন বিপ্লব বললেই তো আর বিপ্লব হয় না। নির্দিষ্ট কিছু প্রচার মাধ্যম আর পরাশক্তি অনুমোদন না দিলে বিপ্লব বরং টাইরানি বলে প্রচারিত হয়। সৌভাগ্যক্রমে রুশদি সেই ধাতের লোক নন। স্বচ্ছ চোখেই দেখেছেন এবং লিখেছেন। কিঞ্চিত অবাক হতে হয় কবি-সাহিত্যিক বলে ভাবুক আর অলস বলে পরিচিত লোকেরা রাষ্ট্র চালাবার হাল ধরেছেন এবং জনগণের সর্বোচ্চ বিকাশের লক্ষ্যে কাজ করছেন। এসব রোমান্টিক কথা। কারণ যখন সাম্রাজ্যবাদী আর উপনিবেশিক শক্তি আপনার অস্তিত্বই সহ্য করতে পারছে না তখন এমন কল্যাণকর-সাম্যের রাষ্ট্র প্রতিষ্ঠার কাজ পাহাড় ঠেলে আগবার চেয়ে কম কঠিন কিছু না। পদে পদে অর্থনৈতিক নিষেধাজ্ঞা বা সশস্ত্র বিরোধী গোষ্ঠীতে মিলিয়ন মিলিয়ন ঢেলে দেয়ার পর এসব স্বপ্ন বরং দুঃস্বপ্নে বদলে যায়। নিকারাগুয়ার সান্দানিস্তা সরকারেরও নাভিশ্বাস উঠে সারে তাতে আর বিস্ময় কি! তবে সাম্যের মিঠা মিঠা কথা না গুঁজে রুশদি বরং নানা মাত্রায় নিকারাগুয়ার মানুষের অতীত-বর্তমান আর ভবিষ্যতের দিকে খানিক আলো ফেলে দেখতে চেয়েছেন। মিঠা কথার বাইরেও বিপ্লবের কষ্ট আর আহত তরুণদেরও দেখেছেন এবং দেখিয়েছেন। রাষ্ট্রীয় সফরে আহত নারী যোদ্ধার বিষাদ লুকিয়ে ফেলার চেষ্টা করেননি। তারচেয়ে বড় ব্যাপার রাষ্ট্রীয় সফরে খোদ রাষ্ট্রীয় লোকজনের উপস্থিতিতে তার সামনে সেই নারী অবলীলায় নিজের ক্ষোভ প্রকাশ করতে পেরেছেন। উদারনৈতিক-গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র ব্যবস্থায় কি এমনটা বিরল নয়? তাছাড়া যুদ্ধকালীন পরিস্থিতির বরাত দিলেও স্থানীয় প্রচার মাধ্যমকে নিয়ন্ত্রণের ব্যাপারটিকে কঠোর দৃষ্টিতেই দেখেছেন রুশদি এবং তা নিয়ে অপেক্ষাকৃত তরুণ নীতিনির্ধারকদের সাথে তর্কেও জড়িয়েছেন। তবে এত কম সম্পদ থাকার পরও, মূল্যস্ফীতি বা ধুঁকতে থাকা অর্থনীতিকে সারাই করে এগিয়ে যাওয়ার স্বপ্ন বুকে নিয়ে চলা ওর্তেগা, রামিরেস বা কার্দেনাল শেষ পর্যন্ত আর পারেননি। সোভিয়েত পতনের স্রোতের সাথে সাথে এই স্বপ্নও ভেসে যায়। তবে বলার অপেক্ষা রাখে না পৃথিবীর ছোট্ট একটা দেশের কিছু মানুষ তাদের ক্ষমতার সর্বোচ্চটা দিয়ে চেষ্টা করেছিলেন। নিশ্চয়ই এখানেই ইতিহাসের শেষ নয়।

অনুবাদের ভাষা প্রায় সময়ই অস্বচ্ছ এবং দুর্বোধ্য। তাছাড়া কৃষ্ণ-কৌতুক, শিশুযত্নকেন্দ্র বা পোশাক পার্টির মতন শব্দের অর্থ বাংলা ভাষার মধ্যে বেঁচে থাকা মানুষের কাছে কতটুক অর্থ রাখে তা জানি না।

[Kyra]

Read for class.

I wasn’t going to write a review and I’m still not really going to, but the epilogue was so beautifully written that I can’t just say nothing. It doesn’t surprise me to say I think Rushdie’s best insights were about the act of storytelling rather than about Nicaragua itself.

“History is lived forward but is written in retrospect. To live in the real world was to act without knowing the ending. The act of living a real life differed, I mused, from the act of making a fictional one, too, because you were stuck with your mistakes. No revisions, no second drafts.” (135)

“Unhappy endings might seem more realistic than happy ones, but reality often contained a streak of fantasy that realism lacked. In the real world, there were monsters and giants; but there was also the immeasurable power of the will. It was entirely possible that Nicaragua’s will to survive might prove stronger than the American weapons. We would just have to see.” (135)

[Kent Winward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe I've been hit too much with South American magic realism, that I thought this was Rushdie's foray in novel form, rather than his journalistic look at the Sandinista and Nicaragua. I actually enjoy Rushdie more in his non-fiction, than his fiction. Again, I don't emotionally connect as well with magic realism that is often in Rushdie's fiction.

The issues of Nicaragua, as Rushdie notes in his afterward, feel dated and more as a sort of a period piece from the Cold War, but that was also its strength. The issues and crises of the moment almost always fade with time, and when they don't it is because our view of history changes them, not the events themselves. The big issues of art, literature, democracy, self-governance, corporate and oligarch power, violence, poverty, and on and on, still remain a striking part of the human condition and Rushdie explores these with aplomb.