Updike's "Terrorist" Missing Soul.

Just finished reading Updike’s much talked about novel ‘Terrorist’. Were it not for Updike’s mastery of language, the novel would have been a bigger disappointment. The content was quite a let down; an oversimplification of one of the most complex issues arising out of the regionalism and religious fundamentalism that has swamped our world. To start with, Updike ventured on unknown grounds, the workings of an Arab-American teenage mind. Apparently, Updike likes doing this once in a while, which accounts for novels such as ‘The Coup’ and ‘The Witches of Eastwick’; an ‘imaginative leap’ he calls it, that often brings about revelations on human behavior and its consequent impact on the immediate society. This ‘leap’, however, was one he couldn’t span in the “Terrorist”, despite the Koranic verses interspersed throughout the novel.

Updike’s works have always mirrored American society and its psyche, but in this novel his effort at doing so appears contrived and plastic. Ahmad, the main protagonist, does not come alive like Updike’s other protagonists do. The 18 year old Ahmad’s progression from a high-achieving, half- Egyptian, half-Irish American teenager into a tunnel-blowing terrorist in New Jersey is far-fetched. Which is not surprising because even his two mentors, one who he seeks out and the other who he avoids, a Yemeni Imam and a high school guidance counselor are just as pretentious and come across highly unpalatable; a stretch to ones imagination.

"Write what you know”, is what Updike said in one of his recent interviews, but in his most recent novel, that’s the very axiom he appears to have disregarded. His ‘leap of imagination’ this time, was into a subject extremely complex, remote, and alien to him, and this disconnect reflects all too clearly in his rendition of characters and their interactions. Updike’s “Terrorist” leaves the reader cheated of an Updikian experience; ‘a rant minus the wisdom’, as a Georgetown professor describes it.

Collateral Damage!

Since when does the willful killing of innocents become collateral damage?

The recent statements made by Israel after the Qana tragedy had me agape. Am I missing something here? How can you absolve yourself of the killing of 60 innocents, a third of who were children, simply because you warned them of your fatal attack by aerially distributing leaflets a day ahead of the bombing? What did Israel expect those Lebanese civilians to do, especially the economically underprivileged? Fleeing was not even an option given that the infra structure to do so has been inundated by unabated Israeli shelling in the past two weeks. Besides, these Lebanese were those left behind; striving just to keep alive in a location long abandoned by the rich and the privileged. They were virtually orphaned not just by virtue of the fact that they had lost their family during the attacks, but because the entire world, including elected humanitarian big wigs such as the UN, had abandoned them in this crisis. Without a national army to physically defend them, and deprived of any humanitarian aid, they became helpless victims of a faceless war. Faceless because there was no identifying the enemy! Is it the Hezbollah, labeled by the world as a terrorist organization, who has strategically woven themselves into the very fabric of the Lebanese society that now looks upon them as saviors? Or else is it Israel, their well-meaning neighbor that is only fighting the Hezbollah, and has no grudge against the Lebanese! The pathetic plight of these human shields, the Lebanese as of now, is a disgraceful and horrific consequence of a faceless war; the first of many our world will face in this era of terrorism initiated urban warfare.

Brokering for an Immediate Ceasefire?

I wouldn't hold my breath about Condoleeza Rice's current detour to Beirut. The Lebanese nightmare continues unabated while the world debates over vacuous issues such as the identity of Hezbollah, the veracity of the Israeli incursion, the apathetic neighbor status of Syria, and the insidious machinations of Iran.

The link below tells how ineffective a major part of the world is, and how a few countries wield all the power and determine a course of action for all of humanity! As an American I watch the Lebanese crisis with a sense of shame, and do little else other than watch news on TV and blog about the impotency of the world powers, both meaningless activities that will not make the slightest dent in the Lebanese situation. Which part of the world do you belong to, and are you doing your part?
http://www.kottke.org/06/07/independent-infographic

A Second Coming?

Wails from hearts distraught
as an innocent bites the dust.
In Gaza, Haifa, and Beirut,
how many more will hurt?
Who'll intervene to pause
this dying without a cause?

Shrouded in pain
and in tombs of despair;
Buried in arid alliances,
in empty stances and pretences;
Negligently negotiating peace
while coffined in dubious differences.

Surreptiously but surely
the voice of reason muted.
Gory graves of humanity
collaboratively created.
Before that knell is rung
and innocence is hung,
gravediggers are invited!

A Meandering Mind

"Cogito, Ergo Sum".

If not me, who’d I be?

A benign butterfly?
Midst color ‘n fragrance
And enveloped in peace;
steering clear of populated places
gliding a lazy summer breeze.
Beauty’d be my abode
‘n leisure my occupation;
seeking little, not wanting to please.

Perhaps a congruous kite.
Etching mindless circles
Gradually varying in size;
viewing a world I want to see.
Carried by the current
in apparent harmony.
High in the azure sky
A busy world defy.

Possibly a passive pine.
Bending now and again
In snow gust and rain.
Standing green and tall
when all is well.
No pressure to blossom,
no colors to flaunt;
I am, and there’s nothing I want.

I suppose a soundless shadow.
Not clearly defined;
coz I cease to be
when the lights not on me.
Have only to follow
or fall as a copy;
no need for an identity
You could as well be me.

"Je pense, donc je suis".

Acceptable inequities or violations?

In a world so economically disparate as ours, how can basic human rights be equitable. What would be termed a violation in one nation may be more than acceptable in another. To give an example: a 15 year old in China may be stuffing toys in a 10 x 15 room along with ten other boys, and be thankful for it since it provides a square meal for his family that would otherwise starve. A 16 year old in Ukraine may decide to be a part of the flesh trade as a way out of her impoverished and hopeless situation. In either of the two cases the apparent victim does not perceive himself as one. In fact he is simply exercising his/her natural instinct of survival at all costs. That the cost appears high to a person or persons of stable and flourishing economies in developed nations, is no surprise. However, what is surprising is that it is these persons in developed nations and flourishing economies that have the upper hand in determining the rubric for what entails a human right violation. The UN Human Rights Commission sits various countries that have defined powers, but it is the western nations that hold the vote primarily as member nations, others like Iran are but mere observers. The current controversy surrounding Mortazavi's inclusion in the Iranian Delegation to the UN Human Rights Conference has raised red flags in most of the rich western nations including the USA; understandably so, given his much publicized wrongdoings, especially the one involving a Canadian photo journalist. However, it is not so clear to me how and why Mortazavi can be prevented from attending the conference. Afterall he is one of many appointed by his country to represent it at the conference. Furthermore, isn't it true that the viability of any proposition is only strengthened when the proposition is fairly debated with ample representation on either side. So then if a Mortazavi does in fact accompany the Iranian delegation (even if only as part of the audience) the Human Rights conference stands to gain more credence.

Defining Human Rights on a world wide basis is no easy job. The UN Human Rights Commission, obviously cognizant of that, tries to get a balanced representation from nations around the world, only some of who are members while others are observers. But mere representation will not suffice, because countries deemed in violation of Human Rights are now unlikely to become members or even observers of the Commission, as explained in the previous link. Given this scenario, what are the chances that a North Korea will get a fair hearing on its apparent Human Right violation issue in the upcoming session...

Could I referee this one?

In the midst of all the euphoria of the Soccer World Cup, the news about the gruesome killing of the two twenty year old American soldiers in Iraq dampened my spirit in a big way. What made it worse was that when I read this bone chilling news in the NY Times, on that very page, there was a news item about three other US soldiers being charged for the murder and ill-treatment of Iraqi soldiers in Guantanamo Bay. Is this fair play?

The juxtaposing of these two news items captured the dilemma that raged within me. Is human right violation to be condoned? Certainly not, and thus I disprove what happened to Iraqi prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. On the same note, are barbaric atrocities to be meekly accepted and ignored? I would hope not! The guilty need to be taken to task at the earliest and they should be held accountable for their actions. So in fact if a fellow soldier from the contingent to which the two dead marines belonged, were to take measures to punish the wrongdoers, he’d be justified… or would he?

I’m not sure how I should react. Rationally, an eye for an eye would do more damage and bring endless suffering. However, at this point my rational self is practically non existent, and understandably so. I am mad about the way in which the two soldiers were killed, and at this moment, if compatriots of those killed were to do something reactionary, like what happened in Haditha, I wouldn’t hesitate to condone their actions. But that may change with passage of time; as the heat dies down and my rational self reasserts itself.

It's the heated insanity of the moment that often makes even the calmest of people take strange and extreme action; a result of the raging anger within, that seeks vent after a barbaric crime is committed against ones own. Do these extreme actions warrant a red card? Could the Haditha killings be regarded as an extreme action taken under extreme emotional duress? Would anyone want to referee that?

'My Invented Country'

Memory and nostalgia can create beauty unimagined and unlived, and Isabel Allende’s novel ‘My Invented Country’ does that and more. She takes you into her throes of reminiscence and creates picturesque landscapes and vivid characters woven together in a memorable journey into her Chilean past.

The novel is a memoir of Isabel who is sharing her nostalgia about Chile, her homeland, and creating her very own Chile, her ‘invented country’, in her own mind; one that she left so many years ago to escape the atrocities of the Pinochet regime. The exposition is direct yet haunting and sets the reader on a voyage he cannot want out of. He comes out of it wondering about his own invented country; whether he has one and if it shares any commonalities with Isabel’s. The wondering doesn’t stop at that personal level. The reader, especially one who is an immigrant, wonders whether every immigrant carries an invented country in his heart, and if he does, then in fact, there are so many of us who carry this beautiful burden. Why do we all carry it? Why is it beautiful that we hold it so dear, and never want to part with it? Yet, why is it a burden that relegates itself to the mind? Does this burden, this invented country, ever disappear, get replaced, or suffer ruin? Why are the memories of a lost home so tantalizing? Is it because as exiles or immigrants we never really find our promised land, or even if we do, it always falls short of the home we left behind.

‘My Invented Country’ is a delightful read that satiates the senses through some colorful and frisky language. Its reminiscing tone soothes, yet, once you close the book, there's a spring of turbulent introspection let loose within the mind of the reader.