« Bryan Caplan’s Free-Market Malarkey: Why We Should Be Terrified of Economist’s “Rational” Electionomics | Main | Toll Bros. CEO Wins Our “B.S. of the Month” Award (and it sure don’t mean “Best Spin!”) »
The Kite Runner: Colossally Dishonest, But Well Written
By letterhead | September 29, 2007
IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK, THIS POST MIGHT BE A “SPOILER.” IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW A KEY PLOT ELEMENT, THEN STOP HERE.
Much will be made of the new film The Kite Runner, as much was made of the book. And it deserves praise, from the perspective of pure prose and sense of place, among other things. But at a very fundamental character level, as well as a philosophical one, the book is colossally dishonest.
The reason: the character used as the personification of Islamic extremism is so far from reality that he is not even remotely credible. For those who have not read the book, the lifelong nemesis of the hero and the chief of the local Taliban group is a:
- German-extracted
- blond
- blue-eyed
- homosexual
- pedophile
- Nazi sympathizer
This is how Hosseini chooses to personify Islamic fanaticism, as a distinctly Westernized boogeyman – and one that clearly has no deep, religious, personal attachment to either Islam or Sharia law. Such a thing defies the imagination and one wonders if any such character could even remotely exist in Kabul, never mind rise to the upper ranks of an Islamic militia.
Islamist fanaticism is a homegrown phenomenon, perpetrated mostly by heterosexual men of Middle Eastern extraction who bear zero resemblance to the villain in the book.
Now, Hosseini could have given us an intricate character study that explores how two people of similar ancestry can grow up in the same region — the very same village, in fact — and come to radically different worldviews. Instead, he serves up a cliche, comic-strip villain that requires no explanation of his mental and philosophical development because he is intrinsically (and presumably genetically) predisposed to evil.
No philosophical, developmental, religious, or other reason is necessary. How could we expect anything else? After all, he’s a blue-eyed devil… a fag pedophile (as they all are don’cha know)… and a Nazi to boot.
This is the most shallow and disingenuous attribution of Islamic violence imaginable. Not to mention homophobic. And we here at LiteralMayhem don’t play that card lightly. As already stated, but worth repeating: Islamic violence and extremism is perpetrated by STRAIGHT men.
Homosexuality gets dropped into this story like an H-bomb, as if the mere mention of the H-word is enough to explain an insidious evil. The reader is then presented with the outlandish notion that the openly gay Taliban leader is not only tacitly accepted by his troops, but that his minions even procure boys for him.
It’s enough to make one do a Nancy Kerrigan… “WHYYYYYY!!!!????????”
I am all for casting against type and unexpected plot twists, but this goes beyond the credible and into the realm of craven pandering.
What on Earth could possibly be the relevance of an Aryan gay pedophile to the growth is Islamist extremism in Kabul in the 1970s? What? Why? It is a jaw-droppingly inane resort to stereotypes which in REALITY have nothing to do with the story. And nothing to do with the real-life REALITY of the world in which the story is supposedly set.
It’s as if Hosseini sat down and said to himself: “How can I make this character so revolting and so beyond convention that everyone will get it right away that he is evil incarnate? Hmmm. Let’s see. Aryan Nazi. That’s automatic evil. Oh and a pedophile! Everybody hates those. And we’ll make him gay! ‘Cause that’s a really good twist on a super-villain.”
Memo to Hosseini: How about portray the villain as one might believably find him??? How about that for an idea?
Apparently that was too difficult a writing assignment for the author. Caricature was an easy short-cut that solved the narrative problem of actual character development. Easy, but a total cop-out.
The book, from a prose standpoint, is well written. The plot device, however, is a well-worn-out, comic-book cliche. For a book that presumes to explore Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and the start of the Taliban era, it’s also colossally dishonest.
Topics: Literature, Media, Politics | 11 Comments »
December 11th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I had exactly the same reaction that you did. The whole book went to hell as soon as Amir returned to Afghanistan. Really, a Hitler-loving, half-German, fag child rapist, who practically runs the whole Taliban himself! He conducts the stonings in the soccer stadium! He raids the orphanage for rape victims! He finds the child of his childhood rape victim and turns him into a dancing monkey! Muuuah ha ha ha ha! I was waiting for him to tie someone to the railroad tracks. The only thing missing is Assef mincing around in a burkha wearing a frilly bra and panties underneath.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Although I understand what you are saying, I am questioning how much over-analyzing you did when creating this blog. It makes me sad to hear that you did not enjoy this well-written novel. I do not believe that Hosseini wanted his readers to beleive that all Taliban leaders were pedophiles and German-extracted Nazi sympathizers. I am sorry that you did not enjoy a book that changed my entire contemporary literature class.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Over analyze? Hmmm… when you put a totally “out-of-place” character in a novel, it practically begs for over-analysis. Especially when the topic is so nuanced. His choice of villain was nothing even close to nuanced. From a purely technical POV it’s a glaring error. I am sorry that your contemporary literature class was changed by it. In my M.A. Creative Writing program I am not sure it would have passed muster in a workshop. Not trying to be snarky or anything, but it just seems so… obvious.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:18 am
A minor detail that I think needs to be called upon is that Hosseini wrote a FICTIONAL novel…to miss the point of a, let me say this again, FICTIONAL work because it is not 100% accurate is incredibly sophomoric and undeserved. Hosseini created an antagonist (that’s what authors of fiction do)
January 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am
First of all I would think some one who is currently studying to obtain a master’s degree could write a little more articulately when trying to make a plausible point. Using slang terminology such as “fag” when describing a character and phrases like “don’cha know” are a deal breaker. Your vocabulary choices make you sound like an angsty teen writing a myspace blog.
Your absurd reasoning that Assef is not a believable character purely because he is both Aryan and Islamic is incredibly ignorant. By simply picking up a history book from the local library, one can determine that not even Hitler depicted his ideals of Nazi perfection, so it is entirely plausible that Hitler and the Nazis’ beliefs can inspire a person of any descent. Appearance and even location cannot rule out entirely what one may believe. Just because a young, white male may live in a community of Skin Heads doesn’t mean he is going to become one, he could just as well become a devoted Catholic. It’s like trying to say that Hermione Granger is not a witch just because her parents are muggles. Are you going to attempt to discredit J. K. Rowling’s fictional tales after you’re through with Hosseini’s?
You assume too much of Assef’s character–it states in the novel that more often then not Assef took GIRLS from the orphanage. Don’t always be so quick to over look the details when making a point. Assef says to Amir that he NEVER forgets a face, and does Amir not indicate that Sohrab shares a great resemblance to his father Hassan in many ways? Was Hassan not an enemy of Assef in their young age? Was Hassan not the very boy that Assef raped as a boy? So couldn’t it be entirely plausible that Assef saw Sohrab and took him knowingly? This does not mean that Assef is a homosexual. And again, you assume that “Islamic violence and extremism is perpetrated by STRAIGHT men”. There are ALWAYS exceptions. Don’t assume.
Take a step back and remember that this is a FICTIONAL novel, and you are clearly missing the big picture, and ignoring the symbolism that Hosseini has incorporated in The Kite Runner. Of course it’s “dishonest” in some respects. IT’S FICTION!
January 11th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I’ve had some time to think and organize my thoughts, in more depth this time, about your blog. Here’s what I’ve got.
Assef was portrayed as such a character in order for the reader to stop hating Amir when the tone shirt happens (when Amir discovered Assef was the one who took Sohrab). The characteristics that Hosseini uses, that you aren’t to fond of, are not trying to make people develop a stereotype for the Taliban or put a specific image in their head, Hosseini is simply trying to make the tone shift apparent. I believe Assef had to stick out like a soar thumb because the reader needed to hate Assef more than Amir at the tone shift in the story.
You mentioned that Assef was homosexual and I disagree. On page 255 and 256 (when Amir was meeting with the orphanage owner), the orphanage owner stated, “‘he visits once every month or two. He brings cash with him, not a lot, but better than nothing at all.’ His shifty eyes fell on me, rolled away. ‘Usually he’ll take a girl. But not always.’” This quote shows, specifically, that Hosseini was not targeting the Taliban or Assef to be a homosexual. Assef is not a homosexual because when he took Sohrab his motive was not to rape him. I believe Assef wanted to feel power like he did when he raped Hassan many years prior. Assef wanted that power still, hence the reason he was a Taliban leader in the book, so he took Sohrab because he knew who Sohrab was. Assef knew this because he mentioned to Amir that he never forgets a face. Sohrab did look like Hassan. When Rahim Khan handed Amir the photograph of Hassan and Sohrab, Amir was astonished by the resemblance between the two (clef lip and all).
January 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Brit B… I take all your points as valid. But I still think that his choice of a villain was clumsy and cliche. He passed up the chance for a deeper investigation of culture and went for simple stereotypes.
And Emily/K… Of course it’s fiction. But a writer is responsible for the choices he/she makes in writing. I just thought this was a bad choice and detracted from the potential of the book.
Emily… Please also consider that tone and style are flexible, and that casual tone does not always equate with poor writing. Blogs are meant to be conversational as well as incisive. It makes for easier reading, and it’s just as effective in getting one’s point across. (FYI… I graduated with a 4.0 from my program… and the word is “THAN”…. “more often THAN not”…)
January 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I don’t understand how you can STILL think Hosseini was making a simple stereotype out of the Taliban. If any one has the right to express his/her feeling toward the Taliban in Afghanistan it should be Hosseini.
I truly hope you don’t plan on reading “A thousand splendid suns” because if you feel “Kite Runner” is colossally dishonest, you will have a lot of sticking up to do for the Wife-Beating-Men of Afghanistan.
Thank you for responding to my post. I appreciate it. Honestly. (No sarcasm intended)
January 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
One may also argue that Hosseini’s choice of villain was simply due to his need for contrast. As it appears you like to discuss the book in terms of comics, then consider this: In the batman comic book The Joker is as different from Batman as Asaf is from Amir. Such contrasts are used as rhetorical devices – surely you know this..
January 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Yes I know all of this. But you all seem to be overlooking the question of genre. In genres such as magical realism, fantasy, or science fiction the story is not anchored in place and time as much as character development. All of the choices in comic books and graphics novels and other kinds of magical fiction are not open to the writer of naturalistic prose, who has to respect and account for his sense of place. The Kite Runner is anchored (by the writers own choice) in a specific place (Afghanistan) in a specific time (the 1970s) within a specific movement (the Taliban regime). His choice of villain is out of place given his choice of context. They don’t mesh. There is a blatant disjunction. It subverts and compromises the context rather than adding to it.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Emily: You are misreading my post. I was not saying that Hosseini was making a simple stereotype of the Taliban… exactly the OPPOSITE… he was MIS-stereotyping the Taliban.