Customer Reviews

Terrorist: A Novel

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(34)
3 star:		(39)
2 star:		(19)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

This is a tough call, but on the whole I am giving this novel 4 stars because it successfully held my attention, got me engaged in trying to understand the characters' motives and is beautifully written. Having said that, I want to acknowledge that many of the criticisms leveled here by other Amazon reviewers do have merit, primarily the charge that Updike's characters are often stereotypical. Of interest to me is that, while many reviewers complained about the stereotypes of fat wives, Arab-Americans and single mothers, I didn't notice any comments on the characters of African-American school girl Joryleen and her boyfriend, who is named "Tylenol," of all things. But in any case, since the stereotype issues have been well covered by other reviewers, I'm going to let that go and focus on what I see as the positives of this novel, and there really are quite a few.

For one thing, I like the fact that Updike chose this very difficult topic to write about and also made obvious efforts to understand aspects of Islamic-American culture that are doubtless utterly foreign to him. An author of his standing could just coast for the rest of his career, but this writer chose to stretch himself and try to get inside the mind of a character that represents a far more complex America than that of Rabbit, for example. This is an America that we had all better take a shot at understanding, since this is the one we are living in today, and will have to go on living in for some time to come. Believers in Islam are here and they are becoming an ever more important force in the polyglot US -- AND it is pretty clear that many of these folks are severely disaffected from the mainstream culture. *If* this alienation tends to encourage violent actions, then those of us who are of the so-called "majority" culture had better spend some time trying to understand why that is, and think about how we can help these new US residents succeed here. (That's a big IF, since it seems perfectly plausible to me that cultural alienation does not lead to "homegrown" terrorism at all. But for the purposes of this review, I am assuming that it could.)

Another positive of this novel is that it is beautifully written and highly evocative of place. The place happens to be a depressingly urbanized New Jersey, so it's easy to miss the power of Updike's descriptions, but consider this passage: "...the sky cloudless but for a puffy far scatter over Long Island, the ozone at the zenith so intense it seems a smooth-walled pit of blue fire, the accumulated towers of lower Manhattan a single gleaming mass, speedboats purring and sailboats tilting in the bay, the cries and conversation of the tourist crowd making a dapple of harmless sound around them. 'This beauty,' Ahmad thinks 'must mean something -- a hint from Allah, a foreshadow of Paradise.'

As for the criticism that Updike is anti-American and using the character of Ahmad to voice his own complaints, I counter by saying that it's important for us Americans to be more self-reflective than we may find comfortable, and that Updike is contributing something useful by raising important moral and ethical challenges to our behavior as a nation in the world. Take for example this line from pp. 198-9 of the novel: "[True adherents] believe that a billion followers of Islam need not have their eyes and ears and souls corrupted by the poisonous entertainments of Hollywood and a ruthless economic imperialism whose Christian-Jewish God is a decrepit idol, a mere mask concealing the despair of atheists."

Granted, that is powerful stuff and certainly discomfiting. But if one reads any of the world's press at all, it is pretty clear that this is the image that many people have of America, and the challenge Updike's characters are presenting in this novel seem to me to be worth considering. What sort of response shall we give to a comment like the above? How observant of our religious principles are the majority of us here in the US, and what about the economic fallout of our national trade and security policies? I am not saying that I agree with the assessments of the characters in this novel, nor do I necessarily think we should assume Updike does. But it is a view that we might at least consider if we hope to come to peaceable terms with the billions of Muslims who are solid citizens of this and the world's other nations, and who have no hostile intentions.

So, for me, the bottom line on Terrorist is that it's an important book that raises difficult questions that ought to be given some serious thought. We should be glad that Updike chose to write it.

Updike's, "Terrorist" is a timely novel. Newspapers and magazines are still full of the ebb and flow of terrorist and counter-terrorist operations. It is difficult for me, and by extension I think of American society in general, to understand why anyone would choose to become a suicide-bomber. Though they are only a fraction of the terrorists they are the most puzzling. So, I bought Updike's latest book on the strength of his reputation as a novelist and the reviews claiming his understanding of the radical mindset.

On the surface the story is about a teenager, Ahmed, who embraces an austere form of Islam. His mother, perhaps feeling guilty about his father's departure, leaves him to his own devices. An intervention is clearly necessary to save Ahmed from his Imam and Updike chooses Mr. Levy, a sixtyish guidance counselor at Ahmed's high school. The story's trajectory predictably puts Ahmed and Mr. Levy together in the truck carrying the bomb.

Scratch the surface though and you find...well, read on.

Ahmed is largely unforgiving, except, illogically, to the father who abandoned him. He is unapologetic, never needing to justify his beliefs to others or even to himself. His isolation and social awkwardness are not the product of his own attitudes, but of everyone else's. In almost every way, Ahmed acts like any teenager, if a bit more radical. And that is the problem. Remove the radical Islamic element from the novel and you have a story of a generic teenager. If Updike is saying that suicide-bombers are just like "ordinary" people, with the same problems and fears, I think he missed the boat. There clearly is a difference. If there weren't, then suicide-bombers would be far more prevalent. What I had hoped for was a deeper understanding of why an Islamist would choose to commit suicide in a manner that kills as many other people as possible. Failing that, I would have liked to understand why Ahmed as an individual would make such a choice; his social problems aren't enough since so many other children of broken families face the same issues without making such a gruesome decision. I got neither.

The story is structured to propel Ahmed, and by extension the reader, toward his violent final act - exit stage left. But we are robbed of even that. Surprise endings aren't bad. I like them. But only when they result in that, "Aha!" moment when all of the pieces fall together. This wasn't one of them. I felt blind-sided and left wondering just what the point of the book was.

It might seem that I hated the book. I didn't. There were moments when I felt that Updike had looked into the soul of America and understood it. The scenes devoted to Mr. Levy and his wife are masterful. I just felt that he hadn't delivered on the promise of the book.

Updike was, and still is, considered one of the premiere voices of American society. But, "Terrorist" showed me that he hasn't quite mastered the subtleties of another culture. In the final analysis, I'm not sure Updike understands suicide-bombers anymore than I do. He does put a more human face on them. And his writing is superb. In that respect, "Terrorist" is worth reading. But don't expect to gain a deeper insight into terrorism.

but I was a bit baffled by this book. For one thing, the writing was so uneven. There were beautiful, evocative descriptions of the New Jersey suburb, and then there was sexual metaphor that reminded me all too well why I avoid cheesy romance novels like the plague.

I know this sounds incredibly presumptuous, but it seemed to me like Updike made a mistake a lot of first time novelists make by not trusting his reader enough. I think anyone who picks up a book like this can be expected to remember which character is obese, which is Jewish, which wears black jeans and white shirts, and which has gorgeous green eyes without it having to be hammered home throughout the book. Quite a few writers out there do seem rather enamored with the color of their protagonists' skin and eyes and so forth, but I for one would prefer more time to be devoted to developing their thoughts, feelings, personalities and motives. Especially motives. If a basically non-violent young man who is not a complete sheep is going to decide to carry out a suicide mission, it needs to be clearer what's going on inside his head. Updike gives us various motives, but none seems strong enough for him to decide to take such a militant course of action.

As reviewers have mentioned the titular "terrorist" winds up being the most likeable character in the book, but he gets this by default. The other characters are inoffensive at best and repugnant at worst. True a character can be deeply flawed and likeable at the same time, but that did not really apply to any of the ones in this book. In fact, I consistently got the feeling that it wasn't really the protagonist who looked down on the Americans around him, it was Updike.

A long time ago, I read a criticism of John Updike that said something to the effect that he observes life by stepping out his front door and looking around for a while and then going back in and writing. This is why, when Updike ventures farther afield than his usual subject -- white, middle class, protestant, New Englanders and their relationships -- his voice often falters.

"Terrorist" joins other works like Brazil, S., and The Coup, where Updike attempts to go outside of his comfort zone and explore something a little different. The problem with "Terrorist" is that he is obviously uncomfortable.

First, there are too many different characters and plot lines in the book, almost as though Updike had planned to write a much longer book, or a book from a different point of view than the one he ultimately chose. The menagerie of personalities forces him to develop a contrived (not very believable) set of circumstances that bring all of the characters together for an ending that is less suspenseful, as some critics have indicated, than it is abrupt and tidy.

One character, Hermione, is an assistant to the director of the Department of Homeland Security. Her character isn't explored and exists solely for the convenience of the denouement.

The character of Ahmad, the main character and the most fleshed out, is complex. Updike teases the reader with insight into the conflicted psyche of this devout Muslim who was raised by a Catholic mother in the United States. But it is only a tease. Updike's conception of Muslim devotion tastes too intellectual, too textbook. It is a sympathetic conception, but still one that seems to be lacking.

That isn't to say there aren't redeeming qualities. The prose is classic Updike, flowery sometimes, dark sometimes, always introspective, and always trying to understand why people make bad decisions.

I've read others call "Terrorist" chilling, and I have to disagree. "Chilling" would describe the book I wish Updike had written, the one where, through a strong focus on Ahmad, we see an innocent devotion slowly and methodically corrupted by those who would wage war in the name of God. There is a hint of that here; those who corrupt Ahmad are obviously more about manipulation than about devotion. Unfortunately, the manipulation happens so quickly as to be superficial.

This is not Updike at his best, but it isn't his worst either. I just wish his editor had told him to take six more months to tighten things up.

Unlike the book, there's a reason why none of the Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil were carried out by American Muslims. BECAUSE THEY'RE AMERICAN. In Updike's book all the reasons main character gives for hating America (fast food, fast life style, materialism, etc.) are superficial and have nothing to do with the ACTUAL complaints the Muslim world has against us. If anything, these are the complaints Mr. Updike has against the culture. So if you want an ACCURATE portrayal of the mind of a Terrorist, read Anthony Shadid's "Night Draws Near" and Marc Sageman's "Understanding Terrorist Networks".

The more I think about my experience with "Terrorist", the more disappointed I become. Here's why:

An impressionable, Muslim zealot youth. A jaded Jew. A fiery Irish single mother. A teenage Black prostitute and her pimp boyfriend. An obese, soap-opera addicted White wife, and her Homeland Security Christian zealot sister. Did I leave out any worst-case, bleak stereotypes? Neither, it seems, did Updike.

While I enjoyed Updike's masterful scene setting and detailed description, I found the characters one dimensional and the plot too convienient, too obvious.

The only character who steps outside the pigeonhole Updike assigns them, Ahmad the "terrorist", seems to defy his deeply held beliefs on a whim, not from some intense philosophical internal struggle. As a result, I found the ending weak and anticlimactic.

Ultimately, the novel left me unsatisfied.

Oh my God. How can you spend all that time doing research and writing and end a book this way? How lame. Come on John, this was too coincidental, too soft, too mainstream, too predictable and too incredibly boring. Please do better than this. If I were going to the beach, I would leave this in the cottage.

As an indictment or an explanation of terrorism, Updike's "Terrorist" falls short. Sure, it's full of puritanical rants about the evils of American society. They come from both sides -- the fanatically devout Muslim teenager and the crotchety Jewish school counselor alike. But it's the latter that takes precedence; in fact, once you're all done, it's easier to see this book as the collected gripes of a crotchety old man -- Updike -- than any serious investigation of the problem of fundamentalism and terrorism in the world today. Updike has tried to figure out why somebody would want to blow up lots of other people, and the answer he's come up with is painfully simplistic and recognizably septegenarian: "Man, the kids these days sure suck." Updike has created a world for himself in which even his teenage protagonist believes it. Unfortunately, there seems to be more bile here than genuine insight. And I agree with a previous reviewer -- just how many paragraphs did Updike really have to devote to describing how much a man loathes his overweight wife? (Did I mention she's overweight?)

For a much more insightful and well-researched look into why a young man might become a terrorist, check out "The Last Night of a Damned Soul" by Slimane Benaissa.

Anyone interested in understanding the mind of a terrorist should read this book. We tend to think of terrorists as embodiments of evil, twisted and sadistic creatures, not fully human, deluded by a perverse and cruel interpretation of Islam. Updike turns tables on us and depicts the mind of a terrorist as an idealist searching for purity and intimacy with God in a Godless culture that worships freedom, individualism, materialism, and hedonism. He goes further and sketches ordinary lives that have been ruined by these ultimately inhuman values. Any truly religious or ethical person will sympathize with this criticism of 21st century American culture, though surely not with the protagonist's vision for change. In the end we are left to question our bedrock values of freedom and individualism - freedom for what? Perhaps in the terrorist's critique there is something we can use to improve our own lives and the lives of those we love.

Updike failed to hold my attention throughout the story both because of its utter lack of suspense in any dimension and the inconsistencies in his character development.

As other have stated, you know from page one that the final page will involve an Arab, a truck and a bomb. The lack of anticpation must therefore be compensated for by something else - perhaps excellent writing, interesting character development or original insights. Updike fails to deliver on all three counts.

One particularly slipshod literary technique Updike uses is the phrasing he gives the title character Ahmad. When Ahmad speaks, it is in the voice of an intelligent, thoughtful foreigner. His phrasing captures very well the cadence, vocabulary and grammar of a well spoken non-native speaker of English. Curiously, Ahmad IS an American, raised in New Jersey by a thoroughly American mother. So, what influences created this stilted phrasing? Updike is trying to somehow comvince us that a Jersey teenager speaks like a Pakistani or Egyptian immigrant. There is no need for the technique and its inconsistency with the character's life is grating.

Updike also relies heavily on ethnic/religious stereotypes. Sterotypes often have some basis in fact but generally make for uninteresting literature. However, in Updike's case, the stereotypes make little sense at all. For instance, a high school counselor's entire personality is attributed to his "Jewishness" both by himself and by others who opine on his personality. This is particularly curious given that the man was not raised as a Jew and, in fact, his family had rather adamently turned away from the religion two generations earlier. So where does all the Jewsih influence come from? Likewise, Ahmad's mother's personality is often linked to her Irish heritage. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that her Irish background (which could have been many generations ago) has influenced her one bit. The reader is left once again to wonder what motivates the stereotype - other than simply poor writing and careless character development.

Another out of place literay technique involves the inclusion of fairly lengthy passages from the Korna in Arabic. Obviously, few Western readers will understand Arabic and it seems meerely pretensious for Updike to include the original language rather than paraphrasing or translating the passages. What comes across is an attempt by the autohr to show he has done his research. If that is truly the point then the reader must wonder why the passages are reproduced in Western script rather than Arabic script. After all, the Koran is not written with Western phonetics in mind.
Ultimately, the book leaves one wondering why such a lightweight, poorly constructed piece was released by such a skilled author.