Take a photo of a barcode or cover
levishak 's review for:
Homeland Elegies
by Ayad Akhtar
I suppose I was mistaken about the premise of the book. Or perhaps the first few paragraphs lead me down the wrong path. A book about Muslim American or American Muslim identity is not what the reader will get. The book focused on an American exploring what ails America and Americans, including himself.
The author described his book as a novel, though there is nothing novel -like about this work. The book is organized as a memoir; the writer’s name and those of his parents are used, as well as the town he grew up, his college, and his place of residence.
The writer stated in an interview that some parts of the book are true and others fictional. As I read on, I became skeptical of the entire narrative. Fact and fiction are frequently confused nowadays in the media—especially by some— so why not have a book that includes both but not explaining which is which? Or who is who? And what is what?
My problem--little is accomplished or communicated except confusion. Perhaps this technique is more effective on stage? Mr.Ahktar has written several plays to wide acclaim.
I agree with the writer’s political opinions. However, the protagonist—who may or may not be the writer—often indulges in what he has spent pages criticizing. The main character is a hypocrite in these cases. Perhaps that is the writer's intention, but it confabulated the message of the book. I missed a main point; the work contains a great deal of wandering.
Outrageous characters and excessive behavior is described ad nauseum. Bragging? Truth? And what about the misogyny--not one positive female character, except one lawyer.
The long and short of this review is the following: Is the writer playing with the reader, confusing us for some outlandish artistic purpose? Is the book an absurd portrait of a love/hate relationship with the U.S.A.? Is the wealthy, Ivy League educated author shocking the readers because he can or as revenge?
I, too, can engage in the abusurdist viewpoint--nothing is real, true, etc. There is a place for such philosophy in literature. So was the joke on us, the readers?
The author described his book as a novel, though there is nothing novel -like about this work. The book is organized as a memoir; the writer’s name and those of his parents are used, as well as the town he grew up, his college, and his place of residence.
The writer stated in an interview that some parts of the book are true and others fictional. As I read on, I became skeptical of the entire narrative. Fact and fiction are frequently confused nowadays in the media—especially by some— so why not have a book that includes both but not explaining which is which? Or who is who? And what is what?
My problem--little is accomplished or communicated except confusion. Perhaps this technique is more effective on stage? Mr.Ahktar has written several plays to wide acclaim.
I agree with the writer’s political opinions. However, the protagonist—who may or may not be the writer—often indulges in what he has spent pages criticizing. The main character is a hypocrite in these cases. Perhaps that is the writer's intention, but it confabulated the message of the book. I missed a main point; the work contains a great deal of wandering.
Outrageous characters and excessive behavior is described ad nauseum. Bragging? Truth? And what about the misogyny--not one positive female character, except one lawyer.
The long and short of this review is the following: Is the writer playing with the reader, confusing us for some outlandish artistic purpose? Is the book an absurd portrait of a love/hate relationship with the U.S.A.? Is the wealthy, Ivy League educated author shocking the readers because he can or as revenge?
I, too, can engage in the abusurdist viewpoint--nothing is real, true, etc. There is a place for such philosophy in literature. So was the joke on us, the readers?