British author Salman Rushdie says writing a new novel saved him from the
"wreckage" of his divorce last year from fourth wife Padma
Lakshmi.

LONDON, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM (APRIL 15, 2008) REUTERS -

"The Enchantress of Florence", Rushdie's 10th novel, is a
story of 15th and 16th century court intrigue in Florence and the Mughal
capital Fatehpur Sikri which marks a return to his trademark magical realism
where fact and fantasy intertwine.
    "It was a good place to go at a time when my private life was in a
state of wreckage, and yes it was, I suppose, a bit of a refuge," Rushdie
told Reuters in an interview. "I think in the end what got me through it
was the long familiarity of the necessary discipline of writing a
novel."
    Rushdie, best known for his 1988 novel "The Satanic Verses"
which outraged Muslims and forced him into hiding after a death edict was
issued by Iran's then supreme religious leader, announced the divorce in 2007,
ending a three-year marriage.
    "I found that in the end a lifetime's habit of just going to my
desk and doing a day's work and not allowing myself not to do it is what got
me back on track.
    "I was derailed for a while. I was in bad shape and it brought me
back to myself."
    His tale of two cities centres around real-life characters like the
great Mughal emperor Akbar and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli in Italy and
others like the mysterious beauty Qara Koz, who enchants men wherever she
goes.
    The novel, published by Random House, has divided critics, with the
Guardian review saying it was "magnificent" and the Sunday Times
calling it "the worst thing he has ever written."
    The 60-year-old had originally intended to set the story completely in
Europe, but ended up dividing the narrative between two great civilizations
that barely knew of each other.
    "In the end I wrote a book I didn't expect to write," Rushdie
said. "I expected to write a book about difference and instead I found
myself writing a book about the similarities."
    PARALLELS TODAY
    He argues that the parallels with today are clear: while humans are
alike everywhere, they often fail to see it and so speak instead of a clash of
cultures and religions.
    "Even now if you look at the way in which we are all behaving, we
are not that unlike at all. It's just that we see ourselves as each other's
other, whereas actually we are much more like each other's mirror
image."
    In "Enchantress", Akbar epitomizes religious and social
tolerance and is a champion of freedom of thought and expression, a position
criticized by many at the time.
    "Was faith not faith but simple family habit?" Akbar ponders
at one point. "Maybe there was no true religion. Yes, he had allowed
himself to think this."
    Yet despite Akbar's example, and Rushdie's belief that human nature is
universal, the author is pessimistic about the future.
    "It would be difficult to be optimistic," he said.
"There is a profound rupture in our ability to describe the world in the
same way and I think when that happens ... it becomes very difficult to agree
on anything else."
    Rushdie believes there should be little compromise in the debate on
freedom of speech, no matter what offence it causes.
    "When you get involved with this free speech thing you discover
that a lot of what you are defending is stuff you don't like. It's easy to
defend work that you don't mind. The defence of free speech begins when people
say things you don't like.
    "If you are not willing to defend the right of people to say
things that you personally find even abhorrent then really you don't believe
in free speech, you only agree in people's right to agree with you."