Saturday, January 5, 2008

From 'The Reluctant Fundamentalist' - Mohsin Hamid:

..we have acquired a certain familiarity with the recent history of our surroundings, and that – in my humble opinion – allows us  to put the present into much better perspective.


I had always thought of America as a nation that looked forward; for the first time I was struck by it determination to look back.


As a society you were unwilling to reflect upon the shared pain that united you with those who attacked you. You retreated into myths of your own difference, assumptions of your own superiority. And you acted out these beliefs on the stage of the world, so that the entire world was rocked by the repercussions of your tantrums … Such an America had to be stopped in the interests not only of the rest of humanity, but also in your own.


A common strand appeared to unit these conflicts and that was the advancement of a small coterie’s concept of American interests in the guise of the fight against terrorism, which was defined to refer only to the organized and politically motivated killing of civilians by killers not wearing the uniforms of soldiers. I recognized that if this was to be the single most important priority of our species, then the lives of those of us who lived in lands in which such killers also lived had no meaning except as collateral damage.


..no other country inflicts death so readily upon inhabitants of other countries, frightens so many people so far away, as America.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist

I hesitated when I looked at the title and the book cover, but I’m glad I did not judge by appearance and that I trusted my librarian. This is one of a kind – a Pakistani’s perspective which I have not come across at this level through any other media so far.
We know where you will go for an actual review. My words on the same go here.

The slim green book with an air of importance about it made me curious. I sneaked a peek one workday morning when I stood outside my apartment, my back to the sun drying my hair. After the first 3 pages the fate of the other book that I was reading then was decided.
The flow between the story in the story and the story is spontaneous for the most part. The cultural difference are brought out at many a point - with regard to the male-female relationship, deference to elders, spending habits, splitting the bill, etc. But many a time the views are biased. The thoughts put forth through Changez’s conversation with the American are almost always sarcastic and many a time biased - which Changez himself confesses could be the result of the after-taste of his stay in the USA or rather the manner or cause of his return from the USA.
It is annoying when the flow of the story in the narrative is disturbed by the narrator’s conversation with the nameless American where it seems to be forced just so that it could merge with the narrator's story later. I mean it's not fun when you can actually see it through all the while.
The conversation is peppered generously with Changez’s observations that might aid in deciding an ending for the book. When he talks about sending chocolates in the rations for the American soldiers going to war - sugaring ones tongue before working on the bloodiest of tasks – while they work on the dessert at the cafĂ©. About the metaphor he uses to describe how he felt when he spoke to the VP-something about feeling like he was to face a firing squad – and then taking it back saying maybe that wasn’t what he should use to describe the same especially on that day. A lot of other things about the bulge that could be the secret weapon, the way Changez assures that the tea is not poisoned, that the American seems to be on a mission, the texts on the hour, etc. The suspicious behavior of the American hints the open-ended destiny that the narration was approaching for Ken Folletts, Robert Ludlums, even the commonest sense would tell one that an American Undercover agent for one would have a well-versed back up story that he would not be hesitant to talk about. (Also, is it just me or did the part about the percentage of Paks in Princeton, etc actually make sense to someone?)
The book has being one of the firsts for a plus, which is the about the only thing that appears most of the time but look a little more and you see the slightly stale, biased nature that brings down a little the value of the attempt. On the whole, the book makes for a fast paced read, a refreshing one at that.