“Terrorist” by John Updike
John Updike’s newest novel, Terrorist, is the story of a high school student, a convert to Islam who gets caught up in a suicidal terrorist plot to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel during morning rush hour. Like all novels by Updike, this one is well-written, engaging, and theologically astute. It’s also frightening. What is so chilling about the novel is how very ordinary it is. It’s not a “thriller” but an engaging story of an 18 year old named Ahmad and the people in his life: his clueless mother, his world-weary guidance counselor, the girl who flirts with him at school, the manipulative imam at his storefront mosque.
The idea of a religiously-zealous teenager getting involved in such a violent plot is, in Updike’s telling, entirely believable. Especially for those of us who were religiously-zealous teenagers. My youthful zealotry was Christian (Pentecostal), not Islamic, but I saw a lot of my teenage self in Ahmad. His obsession with “purity” and a strict adherence to his religion start out as youthful idealism, but they easily pave the way to religiously-motivated violence.
And for those who think Christian zealots are unlikely to engage in such violence, I refer you to my previous post (June 23), “Christian” Groups Defend Bush’s Use of Torture. Christians have condoned torture and slaughtered their enemies since the days of the Crusades and the Inquisition, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The institutionalized Christianity that Kierkegaard called “Christendom” is frequently very different from what Jesus himself taught.
~ Darrell
From the novel:
“When I turn to Allah and try to think of Him, it is borne in upon me how alone He is, in all the starry space He has willed into existence. In the Qur’an, He is called the Loving, the Self-Subsistent. I used to think of the love; now I’m struck by the self-subsistence, in all that emptiness. People are always thinking of themselves,” he [Ahmad] tells Joryleen. “Nobody thinks of God – if He suffers or not, if He likes being what He is. What does He see in the world, to take any pleasure in it?”
posted by Darrell Grizzle | 12:55 PM
6 Comments:
I'm a big John Updike fan. Have you read much of his stuff? Have you finished the book yet? It just came out! Thanks for the review - I take it you would recommend the book then? I am due to read another one of his novels soon - not sure which one, I have a few that I've picked up here and there but have yet to read. I've been thinking about getting this one too. Timely, relevant, hot topic and all that. Updike always finds ways to both amuse and challenge his readers, though this novel may not have quite as much whimsy going for it as some of his other works?
The book is very easy to read, because it's rather short and also because it's so engaging. Updike's characteristic whimsy is lessened in this novel, although it does show up occasionally. "Terrorist" has a very different tone than "The Witches of Eastwick."
Dave, I'm adding a link to your PoMoXian blog to my list of "Cyberiends in the Blogosphere."
Thanks so much for the review. I've been toying with reading this book and now I know I have to!
(I was a borderline teen Christian fanatic, too.)
Alright, thanks for the tip, Darrell! I will get around to reading this book... eventually. And I appreciate you listing my blog. I will return the favor and list yours too - should have done that quite awhile ago, actually.
As usual, Updike comes up with yet another novel, inspired by Soren Kierkegaard no doubt, that has relevance today. I'll be reading this nugget soon
I like your post, and agree with most of it, but I'd like to address the question of the inquisition.
(Note, this does not address the medevial inquisition, which
For it's time, the Inquisition was one of the fairest legal institutions of it's time. It did not rely on private accusations, but had trained officials who inquired into the nature of the crime. The accused was allowed a defense, provided by the Devil's Advocate (Advocatus Diaboli). Compared to the local noble courts and even some of the king's judges in the various countries, it was quite fair. Torture was used less by the inquisition than by the secular courts.
Of course, it tried mostly cases of Heresy. To the modern mind, that's simply ludicrous. We don't believe in heresy anymore, as our idea of truth has changed. However, to the Church of the time, that was a crime, worse than any murder. And to a church with temporal power, a crime punishable by death.
I would not call the Inquisition zealots. I would call them burecrats, lawyers, and other similarly evil but banal names.
P.S. my little paen to the Inquisition not withstanding, I like your blog. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home