| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In my younger days I used to look forward eagerly to the next John Updike novel, until he became little more than an upscale pornographer. I haven't read anything he has written in years, and this one looks supremely missable -- unless one wants an insight into how wealthy postmodern Americans view with careful, studied generosity and understanding the mujahedin who have vowed to destroy their comforts. Updike may indeed be the harbinger of a new radical chic that focuses not on the Black Panther Leonard Bernstein celebrated in Tom Wolfe's memorable piece, but on the mujahedin.
"In 'Terrorist,' a Cautious Novelist Takes On a New Fear," from the New Duranty Times (aka New York Times), with thanks to David:
John Updike's 22nd novel, "Terrorist," about a Muslim in a city that is much like Paterson, N.J., will go on sale next week.For his new novel, "Terrorist," however, he ventured onto the Web to research bomb detonators. He was fairly certain, he remarked recently during an interview in Boston, that the only detonator he could recall — the one that Gary Cooper plunges in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" — must be out of date, but he was also reassured to discover, as he put it, that "the Internet doesn't like you to learn too much about explosives."...
And he hired a car and a driver to take him around some of the seedier neighborhoods in Paterson, N.J., and to show him some churches and storefronts that had been converted into mosques. "He did his best, but I think I puzzled him as a tour customer," Mr. Updike said.
"Terrorist," which comes out from Alfred A. Knopf next week, is set in Paterson — or, rather, in a slightly smaller, tidier version of the city, called New Prospect — and is about just what the title says. Its protagonist is an 18-year-old named Ahmad, the son of a hippie-ish American mother and an Egyptian exchange student, now absent, who embraces Islam and is eventually recruited to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel.
The new novel is Mr. Updike's 22nd and in some ways a departure....Originally, though, he imagined the protagonist as a young Christian, an extension of the troubled teenage character in his early story "Pigeon Feathers," who comes to feel betrayed by a clergyman. "I imagined a young seminarian who sees everyone around him as a devil trying to take away his faith," he said. "The 21st century does look like that, I think, to a great many people in the Arab world."
When Mr. Updike switched the protagonist's religion to Islam, he explained, it was because he "thought he had something to say from the standpoint of a terrorist."
He went on: "I think I felt I could understand the animosity and hatred which an Islamic believer would have for our system. Nobody's trying to see it from that point of view. I guess I have stuck my neck out here in a number of ways, but that's what writers are for, maybe."
And we do need to understand this. We do not need to sympathize with it.
He laughed and added: "I sometimes think, 'Why did I do this?' I'm delving into what can be a very sore subject for some people. But when those shadows would cross my mind, I'd say, 'They can't ask for a more sympathetic and, in a way, more loving portrait of a terrorist.' "Ahmad is lovable, or at least appealing; he's in many ways the most moral and thoughtful character in the entire book, and he gains in vividness from being pictured in that familiar Updikean setting, the American high school....
When he was in high school, Mr. Updike added, his own head was "in The New Yorker instead of the Koran," and so while working on "Terrorist" he again picked up that religious text, a book he first read when learning how to impersonate Colonel Ellelloû, the narrator of Mr. Updike's 1978 novel, "The Coup."
"A lot of the Koran does not speak very eloquently to a Westerner," he said. "Much of it is either legalistic or opaquely poetic. There's a lot of hellfire — descriptions of making unbelievers drink molten metal occur more than once. It's not a fuzzy, lovable book, although in the very next verse there can be something quite generous."
"Terrorist" even includes some Koran passages in Arabic transliteration; Shady Nasser, a graduate student, helped Mr. Updike on those sections. "My conscience was pricked by the notion that I was putting into the book something that I can't pronounce," he said, but he added: "Arabic is very twisting, very beautiful. The call to prayer is quite haunting; it almost makes you a believer on the spot. My feeling was, 'This is God's language, and the fact that you don't understand it means you don't know enough about God.' "
If Updike really means that, he should convert to Islam. But of course a hallmark of his set is that they never quite mean what they say.
For all its theological concerns, "Terrorist" is also an authentic Updike novel, and, thankfully, includes some sheet-rumpled, love-flushed sex scenes between Ahmad's mother, Teresa, and Jack Levy, a guidance counselor at the high school.
Ah. So it will not be all that much of a departure after all -- it is starting to sound like a standard Updike novel.
"I was happy — because there was so much shaky ground in the writing of this novel — when Jack began to hit on Terry Mulloy," Mr. Updike said. "I felt I was in a scene I could handle. That little romance was very real — to me, at least. I liked those two because they're normal, godless, cynical but amiable modern people."
Which, of course, describes Updike himself, and his audience, to a T: normal, godless, cynical and amiable. Such people believe they are being broadminded and generous when they paint sympathetic, loving portraits of terrorists. In fact, of course, they're just being suicidal.
Posted by Robert at May 31, 2006 9:25 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I almost puked when I read the above interview.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue!
Posted by: Mentat![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 31, 2006 9:58 AM
Mr. Updike must need a hearing aid.
I find the Muslim muezzin's "call to prayer" from a minaret -or storefront bullhorn from Jersey City to Lodi- about a appealing as an asthmatic sheep being slowly, slowly, slowly disembowelled with a very crooked, very blunt, very rusty kitchen knife.
The mind of a terrorist is just a shallow, dogmatically-hypnotized, sadistic cesspool of self-justification for inhuman acts that would make a rabid jackal blush.
All John U. does is give the jihadist a little "street cred". and an ego-boost by being so "literarily" fixated upon.
When what they deserve is universal contempt. And a quick firing squad.
Did the author find a symapthetic Pol Pot character to lavish his attentions on during the "Killing Fields"? A poor, misunderstood, idealistic fellow who only wanted to end the corrupt, modern civilization changing his land and return to the purity of "Year Zero", while making children hack their own parents to death with garden implements, while parroting Cambodian-style Marxist cliches to avoid being killed, next, themselves?
Why not, John?
Wasn't Pol Pot just like the "prophet" Mohammed?
Murderer, dicator, assassin, thief, combing the worst of regressive, repressive and intolerant?
Maybe his next work will be the thoughts of someone trapped in the Windows on the World restaurant (maybe a sympathetic "green card" holding Costa Rican dishwasher trying support his invalid mother in Queens?) on the top floor of the WTC as they decide whether to it would be less painful to let themself burn to death or to leap 100 stories to the streets below.
Don't feed the malignant minds with "human understanding", but curse them for their inhuman crimes.
at May 31, 2006 10:13 AM
Flaubert could have tapped into an empathy for a Muslim terrorist that was darker, rawer and more authentic; but Updike is a small man by comparison.
at May 31, 2006 10:24 AM
The koran is not a "fuzzy, lovable book"
Pure genious. Never read any of this idiot's stuff. Never will.
Posted by: Infidel33 at May 31, 2006 10:38 AM
The call to pray is quite haunting
I find it quite annoying.
Posted by: Borg at May 31, 2006 10:44 AM
And thanks profitsbeard for your always INTELligent comments.
Posted by: Borg at May 31, 2006 10:48 AM
I bet some Muslim out there will find this book offensive and kill Updike before he finishes his 23rd book, "Muhammad’s guide to 9 year olds". For reading ages 45 and up.
Posted by: billybob at May 31, 2006 12:51 PM
Christopher Hitchens eviscerates the novel in the current issue of The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200606/updike
Posted by: scaramouoche at May 31, 2006 1:25 PM
Not very surprising.
Another important - though much less famous - novelist has done the same thing. T. R. Pearson, who previously wrote excellent Southern stories from a basic humanist viewpoint (e.g., understanding the reasons for Confederate loyalty while acknowledging its wrongness) has now written a pro-jihadi tract. His latest novel, 'Glad News of the Natural World', takes his original protagonist to New York where he gets involved with some Yemeni illegal immigrants, and ends up taking their side against America.
Posted by: polistra at May 31, 2006 3:05 PM
In my younger days I used to look forward eagerly to the next John Updike novel,
oh my how a bubble could burst! this novelist is an example of the elite culture! l agree with Rush, get rid of all the liberal proffs at colleges, etc. and just keep one to remind us how really stupid they are!
at May 31, 2006 4:10 PM
"God's language"?!
HOGWASH!
Listen to Vedic chant, listen to a Byznantine choir, Beethoven's 9th, or Jack Kerouac that time he appeared on The Steve Allen reading a selection from On The Road- these are songs that sing of Transcendence.
The "song" of the muezzin is the Cry of The Oppressed- the pained lament of those enslaved in the Land of Mordor
I wait for the day when archeologists unearth the copy to the True Koran- and they discover that in the Arabic spoken by Mohammed, "Alahu Akabar!" means not "Allah is greater!" but rather "Save me from myself!"
For me, when I hear the song of the muezzin, I hear not the call to Submission; I hear a cry for help.
Posted by: hasan salami at May 31, 2006 4:54 PM
"I hear a cry for help."
I hear:
"Hey! Here's an Islamic Fascism Indoctrination Center hiding behind my pious disguise as a "church" -- what are you gonna do about it?"
Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 5:08 PM
"The spy who loved me"
turned into
"The (suicide-) bomber who loved me (to death)
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 31, 2006 6:03 PM
JSLA
Of course it's not REALLY a cry for help.
But if one has lived for a time, or travelled through regions where muslims predominate( and if not predominate in actual numbers, but merely feel themselves demographically strong enough to assert their presence), and one knows the words being sung(Allahu Akbar!-Allah is greater!) and has some idea of what the proclaiming of that message has wrought throughout the ages, and fears what errant mischief and terror that "Allahu Akbar!" might inspire in the future; then eventually one feels a need to fabricate some kind of mental or psychic defense against this aural assault that happens like clockwork-day after day, five times a day; invading those fragile dreams that descend upon you before you wake and rise for the dawn and disturbing your sacred thoughts and prayers as you drift off into sleep.
The Call to Prayer, in all-muslim or mostly muslim areas, seems merely to be an effective form of social control- a constant reminder to the muslims of their status as slaves. To the non-muslim, the call is almost tolerable; you are an outsider after all, in "their" land-an Infidel in Dar ul Islam and that is merely their call to submit.
But made in areas where muslims make up half or less than half or even few in number, The Call seems to project a different meaning; something slightly sinister and confrontational- a provocation or threat even. It seems to cry out "We are here among you! Though we be few in number, yet we are to rule and Islam shall dominate!". And in those lands where Infidels have managed to throw off the yoke of Islam and Dhimmitude but where muslims continue to live and are allowed to practice Islam, that Call serves only as a constant reminder of the shame of past defeat, of the centuries of life lived in subjugation and servitude.
Nowhere in the lands of the Infidel should muslims be permitted to broadcast their Call.
"Allahu Akbar!" should be seen for the "Zeig Heil!" that it is- the "Zeig Heil!" of the muslims in the service of their aggresive Arab Tribal Deity; an incitement to violence and an arrogant, triumphalist claim to supremacy.
Nowhere, Nowhere! in the lands of the Infidel should it be permitted for muslims to broadcast publicly That Call and all Infidels in the lands of Dar ul Harb should fight the muslims on that point(only in the courts of course)- fight them until they feel themselves subdued.
Not In Our Airspace!
Nowhere and Never
Posted by: hasan salami at May 31, 2006 7:10 PM
On a handful of occasions I've been driving to work and seen, standing at an intersection, some crazy bloke with a bullhorn yelling some Christian this or that at the passing motorists. I always thought of such folks as a bit crazy. But should I ever be unlucky enough to live where the Muslim call to prayer is broadcast where I can hear it, I swear, I will be that crazy nut standing on the corner with a bullhorn, warning passing motorists not to heed the call of Satan. And I'll be there 5 times a day if need be, exactly at the same time every day when the muezzin goes out. Is someone actually going to arrest me for violating a noise ordinance in an area where the Muslim call to prayer has already been legally sanctioned?
(Here is the alternative to the crazy old "cat lady" - the crazy old lady on the street corner with the bull-horn, defying the call of the muezzin...)
Posted by: Caroline at May 31, 2006 7:45 PM
from the article: "He laughed and added: "I sometimes think, 'Why did I do this?' I'm delving into what can be a very sore subject for some people. But when those shadows would cross my mind, I'd say, 'They can't ask for a more sympathetic and, in a way, more loving portrait of a terrorist.'"
This is a very weird statement. Because when I first read "what can be a very sore subject for some people" what I assumed is that he was referring to the sensibilities of the past and inevitable future victims of terrorist attacks.
But on second reading those do not appear to be the "shadows" which darkened the clarity of his purpose. Instead, the statement 'They can't ask for a more sympathetic and, in a way, more loving portrait of a terrorist', seems to suggest that what he actually meant by the reference to "shadows" was concern for the "sensibilities" of those who commit or who sympathize with terrorism. Or am I misreading something there?
at May 31, 2006 8:07 PM
What could one expect from an elitist
east coast artist intellectual?
At one time in my life, they were my heroes.
I thought they had great knowledge
and I could learn from them.
Then, fate intervened.
I lived and worked among them
and found many who were arrogant,
ignorant of the laws of nature,
so neurotic that they lived only in their minds,
divorced from their bodies and their fellow man,
so full of angst and strum und drang
lapped at the feet of the french and german philosophers of death and nihilism,
suckled by the great god marxx,
liberated by their many therapies,
they spun their dreams and ideas
into an endless web of denial of humanity,
a web that strangled their very existence
and brought great misery and suffering
to them, their friends and family.
It was so sad. I came home.
But looking back now, perhaps
they did teach me something.
at May 31, 2006 8:50 PM
Upon further reflection on John Updike
a man in love with his own words
Old man, begone, you have no wisdom,
you live no golden rule, you are a silly fool
and deserve to have your book "bomb."
You may even be stupid. Let me check
with Carolyn2 and I'll get back to you.
at May 31, 2006 8:58 PM
poetess - re your 8:50 poem? FWIW - a good one. I liked it. :-)
at May 31, 2006 9:46 PM
Krusty the Clown (pbuh) of The Simpsons said it so well, and so succinctly:
"Shut up, Updike!"
Posted by: Shinoliite at May 31, 2006 10:34 PM
You're not quite pulling it off my friend... the cadence is wrong -- it's overthought, and underdone, and altogether unconvincing. Those clumsy attempts at reverse psychology don't convince. And like a salami neglected in the sun, (or more accurately, a slab of cheap baloney) the sickly perfume of spoiled meat informs the nose "don't eat! don't eat!".
Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 11:19 PM
jsla-
what's with the needles and pins?
I posted a comment that was not at all irrelevant to Robert's piece above; so what if I reached deep and threw down with my best Updike- this is not "Cadence-Watch" And why the vitriol? (at least a mujahid offers his victim a cigarette before sawing his head off) -Is that analogy "overthought"? or "underdone"?
Here... I'll attempt to restate my message without resorting to the "altogether unconvincing, clumsy attempts at reverse psychology that don't convince"-
1) the Call To Prayer is inherently offfensive to non-muslims and was, in my opinion, designed to provoke them
2) non-muslims have a right to take offense at this
and
3) non-muslims should use all legal means in the fight to prevent the public broadcast of That Call ANYWHERE in non-muslim countries
-now that I've reiterated my point, what was yours exactly? -with the cryptic, unsavory references to beef and pork by-products? I'll say this once: "hasan salami" is a soy-based imitation pork-meat that was consumed in copious amounts by Warren Beatty and Isabelle Adjani during the filming of Ishtar(Hoffman never touched the stuff,why?). I am not myself "hasan salami" nor am I in any way affiliated with the product- I just really love Ishtar. As for the attack on me by way of snide reference to my screen name-while not personal, it IS rather tasteless.
And in the future, if you should feel the need to direct some unkind words my way or "slice the salami" as they say; do me the courtesy of calling me out by name-Hank will do fine
BTW FYI and Yours Truly-
Posted by: hasan salami at June 1, 2006 3:41 AM
I'm not John Updike and haven't received a Pulitzer prize to date, but I have written a novel which repudiates Islam and Jihad... I'm trying to find a literary agent at this point and have received about 15 rejections thus far.
The key to getting representation seems to be finding 'the one'. Does anyone out there know of a literary agent who would be sympathetic to anti-jihad novel? I won't give up until I get rejected 50 times and maybe not even then. Currently I'm going through the acknowledgements in other works and trying to find agents who have worked in the thriller genre.
Can anyone help me out with specific names? If so, send to a_plague_on_both_houses@hotmail.com
thank you very much.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 1, 2006 12:16 PM
If you're intelligent enough to understand I was referring to you in my cryptic post, Hasan Salami, then why do you use so little intellect in making your arguments:
"1) the Call To Prayer is inherently offfensive to non-muslims and was, in my opinion, designed to provoke them
2) non-muslims have a right to take offense at this
and
3) non-muslims should use all legal means in the fight to prevent the public broadcast of That Call ANYWHERE in non-muslim countries" -- hasan salami
These are nothing more than cartoon arguments by assertion, but I also note that they reframe what might be a reasoned position into a ridiculous and impeachable one. I wonder if you're really trying to show support for JW's mission, or undermine efforts here by posting in this manner?
I have a suggestion to make: Put less effort at "digging deep" to do bad imitations of a lousy writer and more effort into substantiating your arguments.
I wasn't the only one noticing the peculiar over-zealous way you expressed your "support" the other day in another thread -- The bizarre purport of those posts triggered my (and others, I think) suspicions about you:
"Specer/Esmay--Spencer/Auster--Spencer/Matoku--Spencer/NPR
Spencer!Spencer!Spencer!
Spencer storms out of the gate! Spencer parries Spencer thrusts! Spencer from the top rope! Spencer boxes out of the corner! Spencer flies across the ice! Spencer from the half-court line! Spencer at the 20-Spencer at the 10! Spencer rounds third base!approching home! and it's a
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL!
Spencer takes all comers and conquers all foes
SPENCER FOR HIRE-have gun will travel
The pen is not mightier than the sword-but Spencer's is
S IS FOR SPENCER
Robert Spencer
Posted by: hasan salami at May 29, 2006 05:12 PM
Here's another suggestion: If you are sincere in supporting this site as you would have us believe, then could you find a way to express your support without making yourself appear to be berserk or insane?
at June 1, 2006 1:07 PM
jsla
"cartoon arguments by assertion"?
-your'e shooting with blanks. If you see my position as "ridiculous" and "impeachable", then go ahead and ridicule and impeach THE POINTS I MADE- and NO they don't reframe what was indeed a reasoned position
Exactly as I thought jsla-there just wasn't any point to your point.
In the future, when making a comment, remember to leave the "us" out of it. A person should only ever attempt to speak for oneself; and its apparent that your'e challenged at filling even that small order. Your attempts above at criticism suggest that you wouldn't even cut it as a part time grade school TA-are you going to start policing punctuation next? If you need an outlet to channel your ire then why don't you go get your own site where you can moderate and mud-sling to your cold hard heart's content. As far as I'm concerned jsla, around here, your'e nothing but a four letter word.
So get of my back and
BACK OFF
Posted by: hasan salami at June 1, 2006 4:05 PM
the poster way back up the page ( billybob ) who put forward the idea that Updike may get a fatwa reminded me that that can be induced by a 3rd party.
Australian posters may remember this example and I'm sure other posters will find it interesting and amusing.
A couple of years ago a young Australian comedian who specialises in rather guerilla comedy went to Londistan with a camerea crew into a (in) famous mosque and successfully convinced the Iman to place a fatwa on a rival , more popular, Australian comedian !
It made for a funny comedy segment ( with darker overtones for those who engage their minds) .
Maybe the same could be done with Updike ?
at June 1, 2006 10:38 PM
It sounds bad, but I'm curious to see if Updike's portrayal is really what it sounds like. Sure, he may have humanized his "protagonist," but the guy may also end up being an object lesson in the familiarity and inanity of evil.
You can bet that, even if it were an outright indictment of islam, he would pitch it as something far more sympathetic.
This said, I do recognize that he lives in that coddled and rarified world of the new york intellectual, whose inhabitants aren't likely to recognize the meaning of jihad until their own collars are unceremoniously lowered.
RE: Salami. I thought salami was kind of a chuckle, actually.
Posted by: mountainecho at June 1, 2006 11:46 PM
Do they really have that muslim caterwauling for prayer in Lodi?
And who said there was no culture in the central valley...
at June 2, 2006 5:44 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)