John Updike, Terrorist
Terrorist is the story of Ahmad Mulloy Ashmawy, son of an Irish mother and an Egyptian father who has been out of the picture for many years. Raised by his atheist mother, part-time nurse aide and part-time painter, and hardly any time a mother, Ahmad has grown up without any particular guidance until he is eleven, and meets an imam who instructs him about the Qumran. After high school, the imam convinces him to become a truck driver for a Lebanese family who sells furniture…
John Updike, in his novel, focuses on different characters: Ahmad himself but also Jack Levy, school counselor and world-weary man of about 60 who is an atheist of Jewish origins, and also Levy’s wife, an obese woman who watches soap operas all day, and her sister Hemione, who works for Homeland Security. As the narration progresses, hints are given that Ahmad will be involved in a terrorist plot, and the after a slow beginning the narration gathers up speed until its paroxysm.
Since 9/11, dealing with the subject of terrorism is of course very tricky. On the cover, John Updike’s novel has been labeled as “courageous”. I disagree. By stepping into the skin of Ahmad, Updike shows great writing skills, of that there is no doubt. It is for a reason that he is considered as one of the best contemporary writers in America (although it is the first novel I read by this author). But there is no courage in exploiting once again America’s “we created this monster” guilt-trip, the politically correct way of dealing with people that are all but correct in any sense of the term. Blame America for what happened or will happen: this is trendy, not courageous… Assign the blame where it truly lies; that would be courageous. But nobody wants a fatwa on himself, of course… I find self-criticism usually very healthy and admire the gift authors have to find the flaws in their own society, and I am not in favor of Manichaeism. But can you afford self-doubt when dealing with people who are themselves Manicheans and have no such qualms as we do? I don’t think so…
In the context of Terrorist, the characters representing the American people are pathetic losers with no redeeming qualities while Ahmad is at times portrayed as an idealistic hero. Summing up the whole problematic as Mammon vs. Allah is also very simplistic, and flushes out all the humanistic values brought by the Age of Enlightenment, and that our Western society still stands for, despite everything. The fact that a novel writer uses his talents to victimize and find justification to the guilty bothered me and sickened me (and I am not American). There is no justification to terrorism, even as an intellectual exercise for an ageing novelist who does not have to prove himself anymore. Whatever happened to the “home of the free, land of the brave”?
Rating: 2/5
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment