J.G. Keely's Reviews > The Kite Runner

Oh a slight tangent: hey the spat about Native American "fix" in the late eights is what made The Native American Renaissance which is still ready today in Native American Lit.

What I'm trying to get at here is that it would appear to be a disingenuous gesture of a culture that has no idea about the other, and would try to get a glimpse through a cross cultural novel. But to be fair it is imperative to account for the limited perception one would get through that account. Nevertheless even with a glimpse, one could gain a better understand of through historical and cultural devices.

I would never dare to say I am an "expert" in any other culture by merely reading or taking college classes, but I can say I have captured glimpses of it in my limited perception. And with that glimpse I can gain a better understanding through the result of empathy. On the other hand it is imperative to take into account to be carful not create monolithic use from that limited understanding.

It is a complex tightrope walking when studying a culture outside of your own because of the limits of experience and the stereotypes that can come with it.

I disagree. I'm reading it because it is a good book that holds my interest. Honestly I didn't think it would even spark my interest, but I borrowed it from the library, and cant put it down.

Jamie wrote: "Oh a slight tangent: hey the spat about Native American "fix" in the late eights is what made The Native American Renaissance which is still ready today in Native American Lit.

What I'm trying to ..."
I fully agree with you. It is a reason why most writers try to belong to a culture. To have a steady readership and earning. A few only are universal therefore.

I didn't read it to feel worldly. I am a white American, but I moved to Asia, and I don't feel a need to feel worldly. Sorry to disappoint you! However, I did read the book because it captivated my interest, kept me turning pages, and cut through to me on an emotional level.

What an insightful, honest, intelligent review! You've said everything I've been struggling to put into words about this book, and eloquently, too.

"This is the sort of book White America reads to feel worldly." Dead on target - you couldn't have put it better! The rest of your review rocks, too - spot on!

I agree with you in everything you said, But again ppl won't see it the way we do, or at least I as an Afghan who can clearly see the message behind the novel ! It's what ppl aware meant to read and understand, just like the media shows what people are to see not what really the story is from every angle ! Thanx for the wonderful review!

I don't get all the hoo-ha about White Americans, if you read it just to read a good book then you'll enjoy it, I certainly was not looking to be more "worldly", It's also a fictional book, so I was not looking to learn about different cultures I would go online or read a non-fiction book on the subject for that.

Oh God how true everything you said is.
Thank you for this review.

I had to read this book for a job I had at Purdue University. They made all the incoming freshman read the book and I was required to read it so I could discuss it with them. I wish the people that chose this book had read your review first.

I disagree in that if any group can be labeled evil, it is likely the taliban for the many unjustifiable atrocities they've committed. Ignoring anything to do with the Afghan-American war, they committed some of the most disturbing act I'm yet to learn of. Learning more about them and studying their rational does not justify or excuse their institutional abuse of human rights. Understanding can only go so far. I understand their perspective in justifying their actions, but the actions are so fundamentally deplorable that they are inexcusable. Labeling them as evil does not preclude an understanding of their ideals and perspective. It can just as easily be an informed assessment of their contemptible activities.

Not to say that they are all evil, but I would not hesitate to label the organization itself evil for what they've done. I think it takes the notion of cultural relativism far beyond the realms of human decency to ignore atrocities if they are committed in accordance with a specific group's religious/cultural/idiosyncratic beliefs.

To summarize, human rights supercede any localized imposition, regardless of religion, culture, or ideology.

I thought your review was very provocative. Insightful as well. I did feel as if Hosseini was writing for a western audience not familiar with his home country, which allowed him to both exoticise and veer a bad from veracity. I was most perplexed by the master/ servant relationship and felt it stretched credulity to the greatest point. Which servant suffers and loves that much for a master? For that matter, how many individuals love and suffer for another to that extent? It made for drama, but truth? I'm not so sure.

I have no insight on what's going on in the Middle East... I enjoyed the book because it was a simple story and made me feel. But after reading your review, I understand completely with what you said. I'm glad you suggested a book with better insight, thank you.

"Who is more right: the Westerner whose careless bomb kills a child, or the Muslim's that does?"

What a fatuous thing to say. Your review is berating the book for its lack of historical and social context, yet you completely eschew context when drawing a moral equivalence between religious extremists and the people trying to stop them.

To answer your question, the Westerner is "more right." The Westerner's bomb kills civilians through carelessness or a sort-of moral utilitarianism ("I know I might kill children, but the risk is worth taking in order to kill my target"), while the extremist kills civilians simply because his goal is to kill civilians. The effect might be the same, but motive matters in that it's a good predictor of future action.

Jon said: "the Westerner is "more right." The Westerner's bomb kills civilians through carelessness or a sort-of moral utilitarianism ("I know I might kill children, but the risk is worth taking in order to kill my target"), while the extremist kills civilians simply because his goal is to kill civilians"

I didn't say it was the bomb of a 'religious extremist'--I said it was the bomb of a 'Muslim'--or do you assume that one automatically means the other?

Let's imagine another scenario that fits my original question: a British helicopter gunner destroys a building, because he thinks there's a chance insurgents were inside--even though he knows there are civilians in there. To him (and his superiors) 'the risk is worth it', as you say, it's worth killing civilians, as long as the mission is completed--which is the same justification many terrorists use.

Unfortunately, he was wrong--there were no enemy combatants inside, he has just killed a group of women at prayer. To the people of the nearby town, it's difficult to see much distinction between this and a terrorist attack. The foreign combatant has entered their land and killed their friends and family--it's the fifth time innocent civilians from this town have been killed in such an attack, at which point it is difficult to take seriously the invaders' apologies that it was 'just a mistake'--it begins to feel more like a policy, that when civilian casualties are taken so lightly, then of course it's going to keep happening.

One man from the town has lost his family in the bombing: his mother, his sisters, his wife, his daughter. He joins the insurgency, not because of any religious conviction, but because he wants to fight the invaders who have killed his people. He is given a bomb, he goes over to the road where he knows a military caravan is due to pass--he does not believe in attacking civilians. He buries the bomb and hides with the detonator up in some high rocks. The next day, when the caravan is passing through, he detonates the bomb--but the armored transport he destroyed was also carrying refugees, including children, and now they are dead.

So then, who was more morally right: the Westerner who deliberately killed civilians in order to complete his mission, or the Muslim who killed them accidentally while (as he saw it) trying to defend his people from an invasion force?

J.G. Keely wrote: "Jon said: "the Westerner is "more right." The Westerner's bomb kills civilians through carelessness or a sort-of moral utilitarianism ("I know I might kill children, but the risk is worth taking in..."

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that by "Muslim" you meant a religious extremist. If you just meant a Muslim who happens to drop a bomb during a battle in a legitimate conflict, then there's no need to contrast it with the Westerner's bomb. No reasonable person would suggest that a missile launched by a Muslim-majority nation could never be morally justified.

As for your sweet, idealized scenario, it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of the conflict in the region is internecine. When a Muslim man joins Al-Qaeda, he's not doing so in order to fight Western imperialists, he's doing so in order to fight other Muslims and help establish an imperialistic caliphate that's more degrading to the human condition than any colonial horror could've ever been. These people aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting for dominion.

Your simplistic characterization of modern Western armies as invaders betrays your inability to discern the nuances of what is a multifaceted and complex conflict. Western aggressors can make reasonable moral justifications for their actions, while the peoples being invaded can just as easily decry them as incompetent and invasive. Calling it complex doesn't really do it justice, but despite that complexity the ethical differences between both sides is very clear.

Either way, my point wasn't to defend any war in particular, it was to point our the obvious fact that many of these extremist groups don't actually require nuance to portray. ISIS is almost a caricature of evil. The Westerners who drone a school in order to fight them deserve to be criticized and rebuked, but they aren't the same as the people they're fighting in any way. One is much, much worse. And if you think that a normal Iraqi or Afghan can't discern this distinction, then your view of them is more than little patronizing. They know who the enemy is. They know who's throwing acid at the faces of unveiled women. They know who's shooting girls for wanting an education.

Jon said: "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that by "Muslim" you meant a religious extremist."

As Wilcott says, you're not giving me the benefit of the doubt at all here by assuming I meant something completely different than what I actually said. Indeed, you're doing the opposite.

"As for your sweet, idealized scenario"

Really, you consider a scenario where families and children are killed by bombs to be 'sweet and idealized'? That's pretty sick.

However, I was not trying to imply that my scenario was the only possibility--merely one of numerous ways that my original statement could be interpreted. Let me try to explain it with an analogous example:

Man 1: Most people survive being shot.
Man 2: No one's going to survive a bullet through a brain stem.
Man 1: No, but a person could also be shot in the foot.

In this example, both the scenarios match the original statement, but they also both represent extremes. Just because someone could be shot in the head and die does not invalidate the original statement, and just because Man 1 replies that a person could be shot in the foot does not imply that he thinks all shootings are necessarily to the foot.

"there's no need to contrast it with the Westerner's bomb. No reasonable person would suggest that"

And yet people do that all the time--look at the example of spree killers. A spree killer who is Muslim is going to be presented in the media as a religious extremist, a Black spree killer will be presented as the product of a culture of violence, while White spree killers tend to be presented as 'lone wolves', and in no way representitive of White culture as a whole. All three are doing the same thing, and yet they are treated differently because of their cultural background.

"many of these extremist groups don't actually require nuance to portray. ISIS is almost a caricature of evil"

That's far too simplistic a view, and ignores the reality of what's going on. Simply calling someone 'evil' ignores their real motivations, and the context that drives their actions.

While they certainly do many horrifying things, from terrorism and kidnapping to the destruction of cultural artifacts and murder, they also provide structure and charity to local people. You say the men joining these organizations do so to support internecine conflicts, but the recruitment videos and public statements of these organizations present it as a valiant struggle against Western incursion--that's their party line, and it's working.

This appeals to people who feel that they have been victimized by the West, whether that's because their neighborhoods and families have been hit by Western bombs, or that large Western multinationals control natural resources in their country, or because the very insurgents who are now running rampant were trained and armed by the West, or because their government was toppled by a war or CIA-backed coup (as a result of a proxy war between Cold War Western powers).

These are people in painful and desperate situations, who are going to turn to whatever options they have available. A lot of Afghan farmers currently growing opium that supports the Taliban don't want to be doing it, but it's often the only option if they want to feed their family. There is no good system for them to grow food, as in a war-torn country without infrastructure, they have no effective way to trade or export it.

Sure, there are always going to be some genuine psychopaths on both sides, but by and large, the people involved in these conflicts are average folks, not evil sadists--and they get roped into it for all sorts of reasons. Everyone is trying to do what's best for themselves, for their families.

That's why a company like Combat Flip Flops works, because it actually offers opportunities for the poor in Afghanistan to work--they have an option besides just joining up with the insurgents, who are often the only way for people to make money and protect their families--the same way that the mafia traditionally ran their neighborhoods, where you either cooperated with them, or you were put out of business--but if you do cooperate, you get support and stability, because it's in the best interests of any crime syndicate to protect their economic base.

Just continually bombing these countries, taking their natural resources, and disrupting their governments is always going to produce hotbeds of conflict and resentment. If you turn a country into a post-apocalyptic warzone, then the only people who will survive (and thrive) are the ones who are the toughest, most violent, and most fearless--and when that explodes into extremism, no one should be surprised.

It's analogous to the development of antibacterial resistant super-bugs: if you scour the environment and kill off or disrupt the beneficial microbes, the only ones left will be the most hardcore and dangerous. And the only way to stop it is to do as the Swedes have and reduce disruptions in the environment as much as is possible.

And when things are at their worst, people always support centralized power structures and highly conservative values--because it feels safer to have a strong, warlike leader in charge when your life is otherwise dominated by fear and insecurity. That's why American's supported the Patriot Act: we decided that in that moment security was more important than freedoms.

It's also why the rise of Islamic extremism over the past Century, and especially the past fifty years can be closely correlated with constant political and economic disruptions by various world powers fighting over the valuable resources of the Middle East.

All three are doing the same thing, and yet they are treated differently because of their cultural background.

I think this is really important. This could apply to victims too--foreign violence against white people gets tons of coverage, but the effects of terrorism in America are absolutely nothing compared to domestic violence, yet that gets shoved under the rug all the time. Us peaceful good Americans, living our perfect and morally superior lives until those nasty Muslims ruin everything! /sarcasm

By the way Keely, that's some really impressive research and excellent links. What spurred your interest in this issue to that extent of knowledge about the Middle East conflicts? I find it hard enough to get through Western propaganda, much less start collecting balanced information.

Amazing amazing review and I concur with every point. Insight and intelligent. It amazes me that people thought this was a deep work of art.

Jocelyn said: "This could apply to victims too--foreign violence against white people gets tons of coverage"

An excellent point.

"What spurred your interest in this issue to that extent of knowledge about the Middle East conflicts?"

Eh, it's one of the great issues of our time, and one about which there is a huge amount of misinformation and propaganda, so it intrigues me--that and the fact that it relates to so many modern social issues, like racism, sexism, religion, the decline of the state in favor of multinationals, colonialism, increasing class divides.

Asghar said: "It amazes me that people thought this was a deep work of art."

Well, it was positioned and marketed that way, to take advantage of the buzz surrounding current world and cultural conflicts--boiling it down to a simple, easily digestible piece that both flatters the West and assuages its guilt.

well said !

you are a talented man,i consider my self well informed on the subject but i could never give such an argument .

As Wilcott says, you're not giving me the benefit of the doubt at all here by assuming I meant something completely different than what I actually said.

If by 'Muslim' you meant literally anyone who happens to adhere to the religion of Islam, then you're guilty of fatuously propping up a useless strawman. Again, no reasonable person would suggest that a Peshmerga fighter is less morally justified in his or her fighting than a Western fighter. The only reason one would compare a Western bomb to a 'Muslim' bomb in any way, other than to juxtapose and contrast them, is to question the common notion that the extremist forces are morally reprehensible. It's utterly dishonest to disown this sentiment while going on to defend it in the rest of your post.

Really, you consider a scenario where families and children are killed by bombs to be 'sweet and idealized'?

Please, stop feigning indignation. The story of a perfectly peaceful man deciding to join a group hell-bent on establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate because his beautiful family died is completely idealized. The vast majority of the violence in the region is internecine; you're much more likely to die from other Muslims attacking you than from a Western bomb.

And yet people do that all the time--look at the example of spree killers. A spree killer who is Muslim is going to be presented in the media as a religious extremist

Which is because they often are. We tend to look at the ideological underpinnings of every mass murder. When the South Carolina shootings occurred we reasonably suggested that racism was a factor. When the shootings in LA occurred we reasonably suggested that sexism was a factor. When an Islamic extremist kills multiple people and the evidence points to a religious motivation, then it's only fair to point that out. There really is no double standard, it's just much more difficult to discern the ideological motivations for an attack when the attacker's ideology and motives aren't obvious in the first place.

Simply calling someone 'evil' ignores their real motivations, and the context that drives their actions.

'Evil' isn't a conversation-ending assessment, it's just a useful adjective to have when trying to draw a clear moral distinction between terrorists who might have genuine (or at least coherent and rational) political motives and those who don't; between those who commit violence for its own sake or those who don't. ISIS is very much the former. And if that seems simplistic, it's only because their tribal, violent intentions are simplistic. Their impulses are indistinguishable from every sacking-of-a-city, raping-of-a-region, expansionist tribe throughout history. al-Baghdadi is a less successful Genghis Khan.

Christopher Hitchens once said that the reason George Orwell rarely wrote about National Socialism is because he assumed that any reasonable person would already understand why the regime is reprehensible. Orwell saw it as something that must be eliminated, not something that had to be explained, like Communism. In other words, it was a pest control problem. ISIS is a pest control problem, not a legitimate political force requiring dissection.

They also provide structure and charity to local people

This couldn't be more irrelevant to the question of whether or not their aims are valid, or their methods reasonable. How ridiculous. I don't want to invoke Godwin, but there were a plethora of positive social benefits brought about by National Socialism. Animal rights, women's rights, a promotion of good health. That didn't make the regime any less depraved. In fact, that contrast between how they presented themselves and how they actually behaved made them appear far more sinister.

This appeals to people who feel that they have been victimized by the West

And the Germans felt victimized by the Allied powers after being forced to sign the treaty of Versailles. This isn't an excuse.

You seem to have bought into the propaganda. You fail to understand that the cosmic struggle between the "Western Crusaders" and the Islamic world is something mostly ginned up by religious extremists themselves. There are legitimate grievances against colonial powers (mostly France and the UK), but that's true of every invaded and mistreated groups of people throughout history. You don't really see Chile attempting to invade Spain, though. Or Israel attacking Germany. It needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of the victims in these conflicts are other Muslims. Religious extremists aren't simply fighting the West, they're fighting their fellow co-religionists:

"Of these, UNAMA/AIHRC attributed 2,080 civilian deaths to insurgents and anti-government elements, representing 74.9% of the 2,777 Afghan civilian deaths they recorded in the war in 2010, and up 28% from 2009. 1,141 or 55% of these deaths were caused by suicide attacks and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)."

This is a war within Islam that one side decided to export; this isn't a legitimate clash of civilizations.

Just continually bombing these countries, taking their natural resources, and disrupting their governments is always going to produce hotbeds of conflict and resentment.

You do realize that it's no longer 1988, right? This isn't the current foreign policy position of any Western nation and hasn't been for decades. Establishing fair and free elections, and rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure is a large part of most of these modern interventions.

"Over the last 13 years, American taxpayers have footed an enormous bill on Afghan reconstruction projects — more inflation-adjusted dollars, in fact, than were spent on the Marshall Plan to rebuild a devastated Europe after World War II."

"The Pentagon, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development have spent the billions on building an Afghan army and police force, constructing roads, schools, health clinics and other structures, and developing governance projects such as a court system."
https://www.propublica.org/getinvolve...

Whether or not these efforts are successful is a genuine debate we can have, but to ignore them is a lie by omission.

It's also why the rise of Islamic extremism over the past Century

Islamic extremism has been a factor for centuries. The first foreign war waged by America was against Islamic extremists, long before any incursion into the region.

Look, I don't mind someone pointing out the conditions that could lead to to the spread of extremism, and I don't even mind someone wasting their time trying to understand the motives of people who take sex slaves, but I do find the masochistic victim blaming more than a little distasteful. While we're siting here discussing this Muslim extremists are killing Shiite Muslims, Sufi Muslims, and various classically liberal Muslims. What does this have to do with Western intervention? How is the the practice of murdering gay men explained by America's invasion of Iraq? It's the height of futility to try to find reasonable justifications or explanations for this stuff. It's fairly simple barbarism.

"It's utterly dishonest to disown this sentiment while going on to defend it in the rest of your post."

I'm rejecting the notion that every person who joins an organization associated with terrorism is a dyed in the wool believer. A lot of them are lonely, desperate, and disaffected. As this article about White Supremacist groups in America observes: people tend to join for social and personal reasons rather than ideological ones.

It's not unlike recruiting for a cult: people want a place they can go where they feel safe and accepted, where people recognize them and their achievements and where they receive praise, support, and stability. When recruiters use these tactics, it primes people, especially young and inexperienced people to think 'this guy is so nice and cool, this group can't be as bad as the media paints them--they're just fighting for their rights, for their families'.

This is why the average foot soldier on the ground doesn't have to hold extreme views, because he's just following orders, just supporting his 'friends' the same way they have supported him. It's also the reason why many suicide bombers are children and mentally disabled people, because they are easier to deceive, and often cannot even understand the consequences of their actions.

"The story of a perfectly peaceful man deciding to join a group hell-bent on establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate because his beautiful family died is completely idealized."

That wasn't the scenario I laid out. Now you are creating a straw man by adding new details to it that flatter your interpretation. I never suggested he was 'perfectly peaceful'--just an average man, who can clearly be driven to violence by circumstance. Nor did I suggest he had any interest in establishing a caliphate. People join military organizations for many reasons, and his was clearly personal rather than ideological. Not every American soldier joins because he's caught up in mad nationalistic fervor--for many people, it's just a job, a way to get by.

"We tend to look at the ideological underpinnings of every mass murder."

Actually, what we tend to do is look for an easy ideological target to blame and ignore the actual circumstances. There have always been violent psychopaths, and they have always found justifications for their actions. Blaming Islam is like blaming videogames--because the majority of Muslims, like the majority of videogame players, are normal, peaceful people. It's not that the game or religion transforms them, rather it's that violent people seek to surround themselves with violent thoughts and images.

It's like the scene in A Clockwork Orange when Alex is sitting in the prison library reading the bible, and the librarian assumes this is a good sign--that it shows contrition and growth. Instead, of course, he's imagining himself as a Roman legionnaire whipping Jesus bloody--because that is the aspect that a violent psychopath is going to focus on, not all the talky bits about forgiveness.

The problem in spree killings is almost always that the attacker was suffering from one or more mental disorders, and if you look back through their case history, there are always a dozen points where some teacher or authority figure realized that something was wrong, and may even have reported it--and yet these people were neither removed from society nor given the help that they needed. Instead, the signs were ignored and things were allowed to grow worse and worse until something terrible forced us all to pay attention.

The real problem in these cases isn't whatever faith--because any faith can be used to promote violence--it's that we do not have an effective system for detecting, treating, and dealing with these individuals before they become a drastic problem to themselves and others.

"al-Baghdadi is a less successful Genghis Khan."

I'm not sure this is an analogy you're going to want to stick to, considering that Genghis was one of the more progressive and sophisticated rulers of his era, a man obsessed with scholarship and record-keeping, who used the latest and most scientific siege and battle techniques, who strengthened his rulership through marriage and diplomacy, and who believed that powerful and influential women were central to political stability.

Certainly, you can point to the fact that if a city rejected his demands for negotiation of surrender, he would destroy the city as an example, but this type of 'shock and awe' strategy is the same one the US used to end World War II, and which it still uses today.

"You do realize that it's no longer 1988, right? This isn't the current foreign policy position of any Western nation and hasn't been for decades. Establishing fair and free elections, and rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure is a large part of most of these modern interventions."

After playing 'The Great Game' in Afghanistan for the past two hundred years as part of a continual land war in Asia between Western powers, it's going to take more than 13 years to repair the damage done to culture and infrastructure over those centuries of proxy conflict.

I mean, the fact that in the new BBC series Sherlock, our modern-day Watson retains the same background from the original stories (a British soldier injured in Afghanistan) should give some sense of the massive scale of the ongoing conflict.

"This is a war within Islam that one side decided to export; this isn't a legitimate clash of civilizations."

Except for the fact that Western powers have been meddling with this ongoing conflict for centuries--arming and training first one side, then the other in order to protect Western economic interests, especially national resources. It's not that they're simply exporting it to Europe--it's that we've been importing it for generations, as an inescapable side effect of our importation of precious metals, oil, and gemstones from these nations.

"The first foreign war waged by America was against Islamic extremists"

Characterizing the Barbary Pirates as 'Islamic Extremists' is ridiculously off the mark. As an outgrowth of the privateer age, when the great European navies were trying to establish trade dominance, the Barbary pirates were much more concerned with loot than any religious crusade. It was the same system of prize taking and forced servitude of captives that the European Powers had already been practicing for centuries.

Hell, one of the most prominent Barbary pirates, Jan Janszoon, who the others elected to the position of Grand Admiral of their navy after declaring independence, was a Dutchman--who with the treasures he took, retired to become the founder of America's Vanderbilt family.

Beyond that, I'd point out that the insurgents bombing cafes at that time were Europeans--Anarchists, Utopianists, and Socialists acting out against the stark economic inequality produced by feudalism and colonialism.

"It's the height of futility to try to find reasonable justifications or explanations for this stuff."

No, it's the only thing that matters, and the only way to actually fight against them. Simply dismissing them as a primitive war band is exactly the problem the West has been making in dealing with them--and it's a big part of the reason that they have been so successful in arming themselves, swelling their numbers, and making successful attacks--because we're so ready to underestimate the power and influence of a bunch of 'evil barbarians'. It's a mistake we can't afford to keep making.

"It's fairly simple barbarism."

Ah, so in the end, all you have to offer is the ignorant rebuff of a mid-level official in the East India Company. It's certainly convenient, I'll give you that, but it's completely ignorant of the facts.

ISIS has been all over Twitter--and when the company started cracking down, they moved to open-source alternative Diaspora--they distribute videos online, they use drones. They publish a well-edited glossy monthly that reprints the speeches of American Warhawks alongside bios and puff pieces--they even kidnapped a British journalist to write articles for them. These 'barbarians' have a far more sophisticated and nuanced approach to this than you do.

Anyone who thinks that this is a simple problem that can be done away with by throwing more guns and soldiers and drones at 'the evil barbarians' has not been paying any attention to the pattern that has repeatedly played out in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria, or Egypt--not merely over the past twenty years, but the past two hundred. If your diplomatic policy is the exact same one used during the Boer Wars, then you (like so many misinformed American politicians) are trying to fight a kind of war that hasn't been relevant in a very long time.

Might as well post these two related Hayao Miyazaki quotes.

“You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.”

“The concept of portraying evil and then destroying it - I know this is considered mainstream, but I think it is rotten. This idea that whenever something evil happens someone particular can be blamed and punished for it, in life and in politics is hopeless.”

Also Keely, what are some books, magazines, websites etc you would recommend (besides the links you already linked, I'll get to those soon) for me to understand all of the "chaos/bad stuff (don't know what I should call it)" in the Middle East and/or history of why everything is how it is? I am still confused on whats going on there and what sources to believe and not to believe.

Andrew said: "Might as well post these two related Hayao Miyazaki quotes."

Good quotes.

"what are some books, magazines, websites etc you would recommend ... for me to understand all of the "chaos/bad stuff ... in the Middle East"

Yeah, it's hard to say--there isn't a good shortcut to getting that understanding, it's something that I've pieced together slowly, over years and hundreds of articles--and I'm still not done, of course. All you can really do is look at different sides of the issue, take in numerous viewpoints, and gradually tease out the truth from the space in between those various extremes.

Thanks.

Please post more book recommendations on the Middle East if you have them! Checking out the Photographer :)

I completely agree that this book is throroughly a western story

It's official this is my favorite review bar none (thus far).
It tackled both all the feelings & thoughts I had while reading the book, and all the problems many so called "foreign books" have (why are most "foreign books" written by expats? and why are expat authors called "foreign authors" anyways?)

Accuse book of catering to stereotypes, then stereotype white Americans. Makes sense.

Thank you for this! You put a lot of the unease I felt reading this into words! This is a manipulative, insidious book that gives us the satisfaction of enjoying other's misery while feeling good about ourselves.

excellent review, very eye-opening.

I admit I am ignorant about the Middle East. So I took the opportunity after reading The Kite Runner to do research, particularly on the Hazaras. I imagine quite a few folks did the same. I believe you overstated your criticism of the book quite a bit, and you are projecting your disdain for some unfathomable reason. Sometimes this is jealousy of the published author, or it might be dislike of the culture around you. It seemed a bit over the top, to me.

An excellent review. I recently finished this novel and shared many of your sentiments. Unfortunately, I was not nearly as eloquent in my explanation; I was much too frustrated with the book to spend much time on it. Thank you for putting to words so much of what I felt.

Your logic fails miserably. The overwhelming success of the book vindicates that.

Cannot agree with this review. I certainly do not feel better about myself after reading this book, saddened and more aware of our fortunate we are to live in South Africa. I personally found this book thought provoking and inspiring to do more for the less fortunate people in the world.

A detailed and brilliant review that summed up everything wrong with the book. Thank you. I also really like your writing.

I don’t agree; it’s a book, a fiction story, if you want the real information on the Middle East read a different book. The one you recommended is non-fiction so obviously that would be a good place to start. This fiction story if more-so about the main characters evolution than the climate of the Middle East. It’s westernized because the author himself had come to America and became westernized. He lived in the Middle East and it influenced his story and to diminish him because he became westernized seems ridiculous. This book is well written and I have to disagree with you. That is you’re opinion and I respect it.

If you assume that white people are reading this to feel "worldly", you are doing this beautiful novel a huge disservice, This is a timeless tale of friendship, suffering and loss which is what kept me - a white reader - continuing to read and enjoy. This is a piece of fiction, not a SJW platform for virtue-signalling and moral posturing.

Your review is very well done. After finishing the book I felt a sense of discomfort and reading your review has provided me with so much clarity that I feel relieved. Everything I couldn't say or didn't know how to express, you'd stated so well. I really do appreciate your insight and your review. Thank you.

Great review even I don’t agree with it. I enjoyed the books despite being someone who is still very familiar with the region and the history. To me it spoke to about the ability of moving to the west and the power dynamics in the domestic sphere with the “help”. I would recommend the Wandering Falcon if you are interesting in going back to nearabouts that region again.

Thank you. My daughter has been assigned this book at school (Year 11). I had conflicted feelings about it when I read it in about 2007. I'm going to read it again but also tag your response and a few others in the hope that we can have a critical discussion about it, which includes looking a little more deeply at recent Afghan history, taking off a US lens as much as possible.

Excellent critique.

Thanks, this summed up well what I found disappointing about the book.

You've summed it up well, but I disagree with a lot of your points and would be delighted in discussing them but I will most definitely respect your opinions, so yeah. Good review.

As an Indian, I could relate to the deep cultural rooting that plays a role throughout the novel. The emotional disconnect between parents and children, the love shared despite it all, the role relatives and society play in our lives, caste conflict, class conflict and traditions were very relatable and not at all pretentious. If you grew up in Asia, you'd have found it very normal. I could tell that the writer wasn't writing about traditions for the heck of it. It makes much sense. If you grew up in America, it's a mesh of cultures and it's a very free land. However, in the east, the society plays a major role in everyday life, and therefore most of his decisions, however small they were, were inadvertently affected by the society/economic and political situation in his country.

I guess you forgot you are reading fiction? If you are reading Kite Runner for gaining knowledge on socio-political situation in Afghanistan, aren't you to blame yourself instead of the book which only deals with a handful of characters? Kite Runner is "western" because the main character moved to the West.

THANK YOU FOR THIS REVIEW OMG. Sums up all the problems I have with it

Although I don't accept few points you mentioned. I thoroughly enjoyed the insightful review. 👍🏻