J.G. Keely's Reviews > The Kite Runner
The Kite Runner
by
by
![84023](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p2/84023.jpg)
This is the sort of book White America reads to feel worldly. Just like the spate of Native American pop fiction in the late eighties, this is overwhelmingly colonized literature, in that it pretends to reveal some aspect of the 'other' culture, but on closer inspection (aside from the occasional tidbit) it is a thoroughly western story, firmly ensconced in the western tradition.
Even those tidbits Hosseini gives are of such a vague degree that to be impressed by them, one would have to have almost no knowledge of the history of Afghanistan, nor the cultural conflicts raging there between the Shia and Sunni Muslims, or how it formed a surrogate battleground for Russia and the United States in the Cold War, or for Colonial conflicts in the centuries before. Sadly, for all the daily news reports about Afghanistan, most people know very little of its history.
Hosseini's story is thickly foreshadowed and wraps up so neatly in the end that the reader will never have to worry about being surprised. Every convenient coincidence that could happen, does happen. He does attempt to bring some excitement to the story with dramatized violence, but that's hardly a replacement for a well-constructed plot. He is also fond of forcing tension by creating a small conflict between two characters and then having them agonize over it for years, despite the fact that it would be easy to fix and the characters have no reason to maintain the conflict. And since the conflict does not grow or change over time, everything is quickly reduced to petty and repetitive reactions.
He even creates a cliched 'white devil' character, a literal sociopath (and pedophile) as the symbol for the 'evils' of the Taliban. This creates an odd conflict in the narrative, since one of the main themes is that simple inequalities and pointless conflicts stem from Afghan tradition, itself. His indelicate inclusion of wealthy, beautiful, white power as the source of religious turmoil in the mid-east negates his assertion that the conflicts are caused by small-mindedness.
The fact that this character seems to have the depth of motivation of a Disney villain also means that he does not work as a representation of the fundamental causes of colonial inequality, which tend to be economic, not personal. The various mixed messages about the contributors to the ongoing Afghan conflict suggest that Hosseini does not have anything insightful to say about it.
Perhaps the worst part about this book is how much it caters to the ignorance of White America. It will allow naive readers to feel better about themselves for feeling sympathy with the larger mid-east conflict, but is also lets them retain a sense of superiority over the Muslims for their 'backwards, classicist, warlike' ways. In short, it supports the condescending, parental view that many Americans already have about the rest of the world. And it does all this without revealing any understanding of the vast and vital economic concerns which make the greater mid-east so vitally important to the future of the world.
It is unfortunate that nowhere amongst this book's artfully dramatized violence and alternative praising and demonizing of the West is there the underlying sense of why this conflict is happening, of what put it all into place, and of why it will continue to drag us all down. The point where it could turn sympathy into indignation or realization is simply absent.
There is a bad joke on the internet showing a map of the world with the mid-east replaced by a sea-filled crater with the comment 'problem solved'. What this map fails to represent is that there is a reason the West keeps meddling in the affairs of the mid-east, and that every time we do, it creates another conflict--because almost every group who we decry as terrorists now were originally trained and armed by the US and Western powers to serve our economic interests.
As long as we see extremists as faceless sociopaths, we can do nothing against them. We must recognize that normal people fall down these paths, and that everyone sees himself as being 'in the right'. Who is more right: the Westerner whose careless bomb kills a child, or the Muslim's that does?
The point shouldn't be to separate the 'good Muslims' from the 'bad Muslims', because people aren't fundamentally good or bad. They are fundamentally people. Almost without exception, they are looking out for their future, their children, and their communities. Calling someone 'evil' merely means you have ceased to try understanding their point of view, and decided instead to merely hate because it's easier to remain ignorant than to try to understand.
This book isn't particularly insightful or well-written, but that is in no way unusual in bestsellers. The problem is that Americans are going to use this book to justify their ignorance about the problems in the east. This book will make people feel better about themselves, instead of helping them to think better about the world.
For an actually insightful, touching view of the Afghan conflict, I would suggest avoiding this bit of naive melodrama and looking up Emmanuel Guibert's 'The Photographer'.
Even those tidbits Hosseini gives are of such a vague degree that to be impressed by them, one would have to have almost no knowledge of the history of Afghanistan, nor the cultural conflicts raging there between the Shia and Sunni Muslims, or how it formed a surrogate battleground for Russia and the United States in the Cold War, or for Colonial conflicts in the centuries before. Sadly, for all the daily news reports about Afghanistan, most people know very little of its history.
Hosseini's story is thickly foreshadowed and wraps up so neatly in the end that the reader will never have to worry about being surprised. Every convenient coincidence that could happen, does happen. He does attempt to bring some excitement to the story with dramatized violence, but that's hardly a replacement for a well-constructed plot. He is also fond of forcing tension by creating a small conflict between two characters and then having them agonize over it for years, despite the fact that it would be easy to fix and the characters have no reason to maintain the conflict. And since the conflict does not grow or change over time, everything is quickly reduced to petty and repetitive reactions.
He even creates a cliched 'white devil' character, a literal sociopath (and pedophile) as the symbol for the 'evils' of the Taliban. This creates an odd conflict in the narrative, since one of the main themes is that simple inequalities and pointless conflicts stem from Afghan tradition, itself. His indelicate inclusion of wealthy, beautiful, white power as the source of religious turmoil in the mid-east negates his assertion that the conflicts are caused by small-mindedness.
The fact that this character seems to have the depth of motivation of a Disney villain also means that he does not work as a representation of the fundamental causes of colonial inequality, which tend to be economic, not personal. The various mixed messages about the contributors to the ongoing Afghan conflict suggest that Hosseini does not have anything insightful to say about it.
Perhaps the worst part about this book is how much it caters to the ignorance of White America. It will allow naive readers to feel better about themselves for feeling sympathy with the larger mid-east conflict, but is also lets them retain a sense of superiority over the Muslims for their 'backwards, classicist, warlike' ways. In short, it supports the condescending, parental view that many Americans already have about the rest of the world. And it does all this without revealing any understanding of the vast and vital economic concerns which make the greater mid-east so vitally important to the future of the world.
It is unfortunate that nowhere amongst this book's artfully dramatized violence and alternative praising and demonizing of the West is there the underlying sense of why this conflict is happening, of what put it all into place, and of why it will continue to drag us all down. The point where it could turn sympathy into indignation or realization is simply absent.
There is a bad joke on the internet showing a map of the world with the mid-east replaced by a sea-filled crater with the comment 'problem solved'. What this map fails to represent is that there is a reason the West keeps meddling in the affairs of the mid-east, and that every time we do, it creates another conflict--because almost every group who we decry as terrorists now were originally trained and armed by the US and Western powers to serve our economic interests.
As long as we see extremists as faceless sociopaths, we can do nothing against them. We must recognize that normal people fall down these paths, and that everyone sees himself as being 'in the right'. Who is more right: the Westerner whose careless bomb kills a child, or the Muslim's that does?
The point shouldn't be to separate the 'good Muslims' from the 'bad Muslims', because people aren't fundamentally good or bad. They are fundamentally people. Almost without exception, they are looking out for their future, their children, and their communities. Calling someone 'evil' merely means you have ceased to try understanding their point of view, and decided instead to merely hate because it's easier to remain ignorant than to try to understand.
This book isn't particularly insightful or well-written, but that is in no way unusual in bestsellers. The problem is that Americans are going to use this book to justify their ignorance about the problems in the east. This book will make people feel better about themselves, instead of helping them to think better about the world.
For an actually insightful, touching view of the Afghan conflict, I would suggest avoiding this bit of naive melodrama and looking up Emmanuel Guibert's 'The Photographer'.
1481 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Kite Runner.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
May 21, 2008
– Shelved
Started Reading
July 3, 2008
– Shelved as:
contemporary-fiction
July 3, 2008
–
Finished Reading
July 9, 2008
– Shelved as:
novel
June 9, 2009
– Shelved as:
reviewed
Comments Showing 1-50 of 193 (193 new)
message 1:
by
Alex
(new)
Mar 09, 2010 01:29AM
![Alex](https://cdn.statically.io/img/s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_25x33-ccd24e68f4773d33a41ce08c3a34892e.png)
reply
|
flag
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
I'd say it's more like saying "I can't be racist, I'm black!"
Glad you liked the review; you, too, Whitaker.
![Minhazul Hoque](https://cdn.statically.io/img/s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_25x33-ccd24e68f4773d33a41ce08c3a34892e.png)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
And how does this make the book more meaningful, pertinent, or interesting to us as readers?
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
I guess my comment about 'taking your ball and going home' proved all too apt. It's all quite unfortunate, I'd almost thought we'd begun to get somewhere.
I suppose I torture myself out of a sense of fairness: I could have stopped reading this book after the first few chapters, when I recognized that it was neither well-written nor insightful, but I felt the need to see through what I had started.
And in the end, there was something wonderful about the lessons I learned from finishing it. I only wish they had been lessons about the remarkable things a writer could achieve, not what he should avoid.
I'm sorry for my clumsiness; I know any time I read a book, I feel the author's style begin to infect me, often bleeding out into my reviews, and in this case, I no doubt contracted some of Hosseini's awkward, unfortunate construction. Luckily, my natural defenses are strong (having fended off a lengthy bout of genre fantasy in my youth) and I was soon feeling right as rain.
(Note: this is a rhetorical response to a rhetorical comment, and hence absurd. Any appearance of debate, sarcasm, or refutation is unintentional, and should not interfere with taking your ball and going home. If it does, consult a physician immediately.)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
Your pretension in telling me what is good for me is not appreciated; your insults about my writing have no bearing on the discussion; and your assumption that your comment is good enough to be heard, while my response to it is not, is disrespectful; particularly because you are commenting on my review.
If you want to say something worthwhile, then disagree with my specific observations, or present your own views on the book. I appreciate that you've tried to do this with your own review, and was glad to read it.
I'll continue my observations there.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
I was suggesting that you were being condescending instead of putting forth a strong argument of your own, as you might have done if you desired a serious response, which I understand you didn't, but I'm not sure it's fair for you to demand both that I not respond, and that I do so while refraining from sarcasm.
I see you also wish to school me on Aristotelian rhetoric. Feel free to deconstruct my arguments and present their flaws, which might be of more effect than simply insulting them.
But then, like many people, you are willing to make a comment declaring my wrongness but uninterested in doing the work required to refute it.
I understand that refuting someone else's arguments takes time, which you expressed you don't want to invest, but that would make it presumptuous for you to call others to task for what you refuse to do.
You say you would have preferred no response, and I can understand that it's simpler to dole out your opinions and reject anyone else's, especially if you don't want to support your assertions.
Rajeev Said: "that's your assumption. The reality is that protracted arguments with strangers on the web over matters of taste... well, they're often fruitless and take up more time than I'm willing to invest."
Commenting and negating my opinion is disrespectful, even more so if you are doing it because it is 'not worth your time'. If these discussions are not worth your time, then don't start them.
I understand how it would be frustrating to hold such discussions when they often turn out fruitlessly, but then, the only constant between those discussions has been you. Perhaps if you spent more time reading Aristotle and less time suggesting him, you would have more profitable discussions.
Or you could throw stones at a house you find ugly and then tell the man who owns it not to throw stones back at you, because you don't like stones thrown at you, and furthermore, you haven't the time to receive them (though you'll give him pointers on how he might throw his better).
Please keep in mind, that wasn't a sarcastic statement, but an extended conceit. I assume your squiggly 'fin' is the sign that you'd like to move on to greener pastures. Please do, but next time you comment, you may want to be more clear about why you consider your responses to be worth another's time, but not vice versa, or someone may mistake your comment for a conceit of your own.
I also understand you feeling somewhat defensive, as I was unaware of the vehement (and often personal) attacks that have sprung up around this book since I first reviewed it.
![Blondy](https://cdn.statically.io/img/s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_25x33-ccd24e68f4773d33a41ce08c3a34892e.png)
![Jim](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
I suspect I'm one of those un-worldly Americans. Stuck in Alaska, we Alaskans miss (rather, *this Alaskan* misses) much of the politically fashionable Outside, so for example, I'm completey unaware of "Native American pop fiction" in the 80s.
I've read two things that readily come to mind about the Middle East. The Source - by Michener - the last part of which recounts the defense of Israel in 1948. And, The Haj by Leon Uris.
The Haj was not a overt condemnation of Arab culture (or whatever the label is for the Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, et al) but left the following impression on me:
They resent Israeli industry - making a barren desert fertile after milennia of neglect. Whatever Palstinian industry remained was destroyed by UN Relief efforts. They are poor fighters and poor allies. Full of hate, but couldn't focus it enough to wipe out Israel. Inheritance traditions tend to make enemies of sons and fathers. The story ends with a bang when the protagonist kills his daughter when he discovers she's not a virgin (an "honor killing").
Some of this may well have come from Exodus - also by Uris.
In any case, did you read The Haj?
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
Took a class on it back in college. My professor was a Native author who found it frustrating that most of the well-known Native pop fiction were just thoroughly Western novels with a vague, generic sheen of difference.
"They resent Israeli industry - making a barren desert fertile after milennia of neglect. Whatever Palstinian industry remained was destroyed by UN Relief efforts. They are poor fighters and poor allies. Full of hate, but couldn't focus it enough to wipe out Israel."
Well, I'm certainly no expert on this very divisive issue, but it's my understanding that the Israelis have had international economic and military support from the First World powers that established their country, which is why they have the most advanced and well-equipped military in the world.
The other countries of the Middle East, while they may have strong cash flow thanks to oil, do not have very robust infrastructure, since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top. I understand it's hard to build a military force without either industry or a middle class of trained workers.
But no, I haven't read The Haj, though I do have a 1st edition of Exodus around here, somewhere (haven't read that yet, either).
![Jim](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
You might be a book collector!
I recall enjoying The Haj quite a lot. It appears I'm not alone.
I suspect that the US gave away much war machinery early on but that Israel has been footing the bill since. Next to Turkey they have the only modern economy in the region.
![Isabella Queirouz](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1310693110p1/4771277.jpg)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
I also didn't find the redemptive progression very fulfilling because the main character was up against such a cartoonish villain. Overcoming a demented sociopath is not the plot of a complex personal story of growth, it's the plot of a horror or action movie.
A redemptive story is about overcoming the self, and since this was the story of a spoiled, wealthy kid who never really came to know or understand himself, there isn't much space for personal redemption.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
If you want me to reconsider this book, you'll have to come up with an argument or insight about it that I haven't considered yet. Telling me to 'take a deeper look and reconsider' is pointless, because you could say that about any book (and people often do). If it deserves a deeper look, then tell me why. Explain what deeper level it operates on and how the author creates that deep structure.
I admit it's going to take a pretty good argument to convince me to reconsider because when I think of this book, all I remember is a bit of fluff with little emotional depth. Another thing to consider if you want to convince me is that you'll have to deal with the arguments I put forth in my review, and either refute them or explain how my criticism doesn't take into account some aspect of the book.
Check out this article for some tips on how to write a persuasive argument, I always find it useful.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
Greek scholar Edith Hamilton defined tragedy as 'something terrible befalling a person who has the utmost capacity to feel and comprehend it' (I paraphrase). Redemption relies on the same depth of feeling. A person cannot experience redemption without coming to some drastically new understanding about the world, and about themselves. Without that kind of new comprehension, the notion of 'redemption' is just a self-justifying delusion.
I would be interested to know what you think the redemptive event is, and what transformative insight is drawn from that event.
"The reason why I chose to truly like this book is because it feels like a truthful account of a person who has in truth never really faced the harsh realities of Afghanistan. . . would you not expect someone to be narrow-minded because they had a particular upbringing?"
Yes, but a narrow-minded truth really isn't truth at all. It is impossible to write a good book without self-awareness and self-deprication. If an author cannot look at their own flaws and write about them, then they are not writing a book about ignorance, but a book of ignorance.
This is not a book about a spoiled, narrow-minded person, because it does not explore the source or result of that narrow-mindedness. It merely resides in narrow-mindedness because the author is incapable of seeing the world in any other way.
This is not a sign of a skilled author, it is, in fact, a sign of a very unskilled author, who is not able to comprehend others enough to write complete characters. We might see some inadvertent insights into closed-mindedness, but this is despite the author, not because of him.
This book is only 'realistic' in the sense that the author is too guileless to actually write fiction. It is real because all he can write is himself and he doesn't have enough experience to step outside of that and create something profound.
In that sense, I suppose it might be interesting to see how the author naively and inadvertently reveals himself, but again, that is a sign of how unskilled he is, and how flawed his depiction of the story is. I could hardly rate a book highly if the only interesting thing about it is how the author is unable to write good fiction.
![Labib](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1673036703p1/5818997.jpg)
I see the story more as a tale of crime and redemption than one about the sociopolitical unrest in Afghanistan. The settings was, as is most often the case, the backdrop to the hero's journey to self-healing and personal redemption, rather than the catalyst for the main occurings in the novel. Let's say a pretty similar story could have been narrated and set in a western place (as an example). I think the book might come out better if you bring it to the expectation of that genre, than a semi-nonfiction-esque literary work.
I, however, do agree that Assef was rather one-dimensional; nevertheless, that in no way took anything away from Aamir's personal journey. He wasn't overcoming a demented sociopathic individual as much as overcoming his own demented sociopathic nature. In some way, the one-dimensionally-evil Assef was acting as his foil as was the one-dimensionally-good Hassan, representing both sides of his (Aamir's) personality.
The fact that he can be defeated physically in a fight with Assef but still win internally shows the real battle wasn't between him and Assef, nor was it a phsical battle.
As for providing a statement-by-statement refutation (with reference from the source material), I need to revisit the book before getting on with a more comprehensive dissection to your review. The same applies to you too. "The psychology tended to be fairly simplistic", "the interpersonal conflicts which made up the story's plot did not seem to stem from irreconcilable psychological differences in developed characters, but from convenient misunderstandings that the author stretched out to fill space", " this was the story of a spoiled, wealthy kid who never really came to know or understand himself", etc requires to be backed up by textual reference or something.
Edited to add, thanks for the interesting - even if slightly misjudged, in my opinion - review! :)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
"I think you are looking at the book from the wrong angle"
Hey Bookworm, sorry I missed your comment earlier. Most of the comments you're quoting are from a conversation I had with an individual who deleted all their comments, so you're only getting half the story. For instance, the idea that the story was about a spoiled rich kid was presented by the other commentator, so there was no need to bring in textual support to defend it--it was already a given on both sides of the discussion.
It's unfortunate when comments get deleted like that because it can gut an otherwise interesting conversation that others might be interested in, but it's pretty common when people who get upset about books don't have much to say, they decide to 'take their ball and go home' when things aren't going their way.
Thanks for the comment.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
![Carl](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1391859203p1/7309652.jpg)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
As for the review, I wrote it a few days after I finished the book. I've edited it and changed it around since then, though.
![Pamela](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1312308187p1/4894054.jpg)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
![linny](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1427470700p1/11586670.jpg)
yes, because a white person's insights on the middle east are far more valuable than an actual middle eastern person's.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
In that sense, it can sometimes be very effective to see an outsider's view, though of course, they will be possessed of their own prejudices, and they will not be able to pierce the depth of a foreign culture, as the Theosophists proved in their poor and inaccurate translations of Sanskrit texts.
![Jim](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
It once happened that an adversary on an Amazon book review comment thread once edited his post to which I'd replied.
I'm fairly sure that it was not me "misrembering" (to use a Bush-ism). It was confirmed (to my mind) when I cautioned another to be sure to directly quote the miscreant lest he edit his own reply. The miscreant blustered "screw you"!
(Apparently "screw" is not on the Amazon profanity filter)
![Jim](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1668721790p1/1237540.jpg)
Today I read an article on Mad Men (a show with which I am probably too familiar) "Tomorrow Never Knows: Race and Anxiety in ‘Mad Men’" This article uses phrases such as "white, patriarchal lens" and "Such criticisms have especially plagued perceptions of the show’s (most recent season)".
My impression is that the writer has her own strong lens that distorts the show for her.
![Nermin](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1578564696p1/12267903.jpg)
Wow, this is a truly wonderful review, Keely. And I'll be reading that book you recommended.
![Caryn](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1342653050p1/11077365.jpg)
The rest of the review I agree with. In fact, I think a few months after I'd read this book, there was a magazine section article in the South China Morning Post about bacha bazi in Afghanistan, a terrible twisted, abusive practice, but apparently not uncommon, and kind of organized/institutional: an under-the-table known like protection rackets in the mafia.
I think pretty obscure in the West, at least at that time. I felt rather annoyed with Hosseini for not explaining ANYTHING about the pedophilia or even linking his cartoon villain to this practice. He makes no sense without the context of this practice, in this book written for middle-brow consumption, i do think it would be completely unknown, yet there is no attempt at explanation at all, rendering his villain far more unbelievable than he needed to be. A cheap/lazy cop-out, I thought.
I thought the most mind-blowing thing about the book, for me was his descriptions of life in Kabul before the wars started. I definitely did not know much of anything about the country, kind of assumed it was always a stone-age, backwards hell-hole, if I'd even thought of it at all and that prompted me to research more. That was chilling. To know they were pretty much like the west, certainly not backwards or stone aged. That's what a long war can do to a country. We are not immune to returning to the dark ages, losing all of our technology, all of our 'enlightenment' 'freedoms' and societal structure. Chilling.
Cheers, from Caryn in 'Slave-labor and cheap shit', (aka China)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
Except it wasn't a map of the world, it was just the Middle East--there was no context which suggested that this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, or representative of a stereotype in need of being mocked. I mean, if I saw a drunk, slack-jawed yokel in a Confederate naval ensign hat and a shirt that says 'nuke Iran', my first assumption isn't that he's participating in an ironic send-up of prejudice.
"I felt rather annoyed with Hosseini for not explaining ANYTHING about the pedophilia"
Yeah, it was unfortunate that the book gave no context for the act.
"To know they were pretty much like the west, certainly not backwards or stone aged. That's what a long war can do to a country. We are not immune to returning to the dark ages, losing all of our technology, all of our 'enlightenment' 'freedoms' and societal structure. Chilling."
Well, the reason it happened that way in Afghanistan is because more powerful and influential economic forces, both First (and Second) World countries and multinational businesses have staked a claim on Afghanistan, pouring in cheap weapons and drugs, hiring and training mercenaries, ensuring that the only profitable crop for farmers is opium, and turning it into an unofficial staging-point for the cold war. It's hardly surprising that their society was unable to hold up under all of that, nor is it surprising that a new, open conflict is being waged there now that we have discovered that it is a treasure trove of rare earth metals, the newest exhaustible resource of economic expansion.
It's somewhat difficult to imagine America being meddled with in the same way, as it has much more power and political clout with which to defend itself. Then again, there is a shift away from the traditional power base of sovereign nations and toward the newer power base of independent multinational corporations, which have demonstrated that they are capable of using political lobbying and deliberate bubble speculation to establish their own power and influence, while at the same time placing the risk of those investments on consumers.
But we still have yet to answer the question of just how far this economic imbalance can be carried within a First World population.
![Caryn](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1342653050p1/11077365.jpg)
http://thementalists.fr.yuku.com/topi...
---------------
"Well, the reason it happened that way in Afghanistan is because..."
Yes, I know. I've since done some research on that too. Very True and enraging! The speed and the completeness or extent to which they were reduced to rubble was shocking to me. Additionally, of course the US has it's very own 'taliban-gelicals' waiting in the wings should the opportunity arise.
Perhaps it was very naive of me, but I'd never considered a whole country, a whole fairly advanced society could be pushed so far backwards or even completely destroyed. It is actually much easier than one thinks. Our 'civilization' is much more tenuous than I had ever thought possible.
--------
"It's somewhat difficult to imagine America being meddled with in the same way, as it has much more power and political clout with which to defend itself."
No, probably not in the same way and not for the same reasons, But, Damn! Things change so quickly. Things we take for granted can so easily be 'taken away' or fall away from us. Technology changes, as you say, corporate and political power structures change, in a little over a decade the social temper of the US has flipped 180 degrees... - the people themselves have changed. (I see this most drastically as I live outside and only visit 'home', the US, once or twice a year). None of us is on a truly solid foundation. We have to keep WORKING on it.
Cheers,
![Shelley Riley](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1442883257p1/19648934.jpg)
![Alishan](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1363610401p1/14924473.jpg)
From the bottom of my heart, I appreciate what you have written in this review about the depiction of Muslim affairs. I am a Muslim, and when I see all the hate propaganda against my religion, it both grieves and aggravates me. I've read the other book, A Thousand Splendid Suns, by this guy, and your statements apply to that book as well. I really liked the book, it was an exceptional story with little flaws here and there, but the portrayal of Muslims and Afghans made me shake my head.
I keep coming across people who hate/look down upon Muslims unconditionally, and educating them about the truth only pushes them further away. As a matter of fact, I was very glad to know about the success of Khaled Hosseini as I felt that a Muslim, finally, will be able to clear all the misconceptions - not only a Muslim, the fact that an Afghan was able to rise from the rubble was such a great news to hear, but then I came to know that he's been living in US/European countries since he was a kid. Then it just felt like he's just taking advantage of his heritage. Like you said, he just makes Westerners and anti-Muslim communities feel good about themselves for their loathsome opinion of Muslims.
A Thousand Splendid Suns is an incredible story, and I know the story of the Kite Runner as well because I've seen the movie, but he does need to get a better clue, and have more decent Muslim characters in his book. At one time, his characters look like Americans who are trapped with their imaginary Talibani and deviant Muslims. Let's hope he did so in his new book.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
It's also unfortunate how some Westerners will take the words and actions of a single Muslim--whether they are a political leader or an author--and then say that those words and actions are representative of all Muslims. People are too willing to read a book like Hosseini's and then say 'this is what Muslims are' or 'this is what Afghans are', when of course there is a great deal of history and depth there.
![S. Nathan](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1442618373p1/13026151.jpg)
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
Yes, it's true--I felt the same way. But then, after all, it's very difficult to write a child well. Authors remember that children are honest and impulsive, but often forget that they also find the world confusing, and make up their own strange stories in order to make sense of it. Instead, they tend to make the children into little honest, impulsive representations of the author's own philosophies, which does make them sound unlike children.
"I really did appreciate your review and your outlook on the book, coming from one who has experienced both cultures . . . I really hope that writers who deal with such topics can execute them with more delicacy than Hosseini has."
I'm glad that you found my views on the book to be appropriate, especially since you have more experience on the subject. I try to use my sense of humanity as a whole to judge such works--that though people often seem very different on the outside, they are not so different on the inside. I am glad my instinct was accurate in this case.
I also hope to see more books that deal with these topics of culture, faith, and conflicting viewpoints with more delicacy and insight than Hosseini. It is often our books that lead the way to new understanding, and a new understanding is something we very much need.
Thanks for your comment.
![Abhishek Ghoshal](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1489326507p1/3835079.jpg)
And without being overly critical, your opening lines " This is the sort of book White America..... " is a far too generalized and conclusive statement, no? [ I won't add racist just for political correctness as its obvious that wasn't your intention ] . What about people from the rest of the world to whom the ,ah,Westerner "lets feel great about us because Taliban muslims suck" psyche ( I might have ignored other points but this is he gist of it,yes) doesn't apply to? I'm from India and I also have a few friends who liked the book as much as I did. That rationale certainly isn't suitable for us.
All in all, a great review. I will need to research ( *cough* google *cough*) [ Is that even possible to research a wole culture without experiencing first hand?] these author's description of culture before blindly accepting it as given facts from now.. Thank you for the enlightenment.
P.S. - Have you considered writing? Your language is as eloquent as it is methodical in pointing out facts.
![J.G. Keely](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images.gr-assets.com/users/1274333636p1/84023.jpg)
Well, I'm not sure what it makes you--I suppose that's up to you.
"I'm from India and I also have a few friends who liked the book as much as I did. That rationale certainly isn't suitable for us."
Well, I suppose I feel more qualified to talk about the White American response rather than, for example, the Indian response, because I have a lot more experience with White America. I'm mostly talking about the 'Oprah's Book Club' crowd here--though I recognize that influence also stretches around the world.
"Is that even possible to research a wole culture without experiencing first hand?"
Well, it's not the same, but it's better to know somthing about a culture, even if you can't experience it firsthand, than not to know. Plus, a lot of people who have experienced another culture firsthand still retain the same bias and bigotry afterwards, so that isn't necessarily a solution, either.
Anyways, thanks for the comment. I'm glad you got something out of the review.
"Have you considered writing? Your language is as eloquent as it is methodical in pointing out facts."
Yeah, I'm working on a fiction piece right now. I'll have to see how it goes once I'm finished.