Instruct: Classify the given review as either positive or negative.
Query: not a great novel

There's a lot of praise for this book, and I thought I'd put my two cents in. One important note: Rushdie PURPOSELY inserts historical innacuracies, so don't think you're getting an accurate historical account - that's done on purpose. Indeed, from a post-structuralist theoretical standpoint, Rushdie's project is clearly to deconstruct. But, he goes nowhere with it. His whole novel can be summed up in a few lines: The popular version of history is inherently corrupted by social mediating forces; so, in order to combat that force, I'm going to offer MY version of history to show that there is no ONE history. It's a pretty standard argument, but he doesn't develop it beyond that. I would suggest that you look to Faulkner (who focuses on history's lingering qualities) or Ellison's Invisible Man (in which he focuses on how to break through cycles of historical oppression). They handle the effects of history in a much more engaging and profound way.