Linda's review

Not sure we're supposed to like Amir. At least I didn't. I pitied him, as I pity most pathetic characters, but I thought Hosseini did a good job of painting him as the problem.

With regard to his fight with Assef, I thought that was the most important moment of the book. It was as if Hassan was leading Amir to his penance, because he knew Amir would never have been able to let go of his guilt until he felt as though he had suffered for his sins.

That's just my perspective, I appreciate yours. I love that books can promote such different reactions in people.

Very nicely done. I find it hard to believe that I did not pick up on the themes you highlight. Manipulation is Hosseini's game. I thought it came much later. But I think you are correct that it comes early on. I also very much appreciate that you point out his paternalism.

Mike and Naeem, thanks for your comments.

I have to say, I did consider for a long time that perhaps we're actually not supposed to like Amir. Certainly authors often use "unreliable narrators" to bring their point across.

However, the more I thought about it, and keeping in mind the other points I mentioned, regarding what Naeem elegantly and correctly sums up as the paternalism in the novel, I'm still not convinced that's the case here. In any event, on a personal level, I am much less interested in Amir's guilt than in Hassan's actual, terrible, and repeated suffering.

Thanks again for your comments. This is one novel that definitely stayed on my mind for a long time after reading it, and even now can still get me turning things over in my head.

What a thoughtful, well-written review. It puts into words all the mixed feelings I had about the novel. I'd really been trying to think I liked it, mostly because my friends who have read it think it's great, but also because I did feel after reading it that I knew more about the situation in Afghanistan than I did before I read it. But ultimately, I have to agree with everything you said. The word "manipulative" had definitely entered my mind.

Characters like Amir, who hurt others and make almost unforgivable mistakes, can be compelling if they're handled the right way. I just don't think Hosseini handled Amir the right way, implying that he should be sympathetic even as he sits back watching the horrible things that he caused play out. I felt like I wasn't allowed to be repulsed by that. He could have ended up being sympathetic if the reader first felt permitted to hate him. He should have had to earn back our respect.

Another thing (spoiler, if anyone cares): During the molestation scene, I was very conscious that I was reading a book. I didn't believe the dialogue or the way it played out. It all seemed too neat and scripted, and I doubt that anything that horrible is neat and scripted in real life.

At any rate, I didn't mean to get into all this. All I meant to say was: great review, and I agree with you!

Your observations were dead on, in my opinion. I felt similarly directly after reading the book. I changed my mind a little later on. I think that as an unreliable narrator, Hosseini wanted us to see that Amir was living in the fire of his guilt over things he did as a child. The child's poor judgment and character flaws became the man's self-imposed life sentence. Still, if Hosseini meant for Amir to seem wrong in his harsh self-perception, he could have made this more clear. I still have really mixed feelings concerning this book. I guess all writers must manipulate situations to suit their intent, but this story felt overly manipulative.

His Afghanistan was living, breathing--real. The best thing I took from the book was a snapshot of the mix of cultures and some (subjective) history of that land.

Have you read his other book A Thousand Splendid Suns? (I sincerely appreciated your thougtful, even-handed review, BTW, which is why I am so curious to hear your reactions to the other.) I guess, in the end, we have to credit Kite Runner as a postiive contrubtion to literature, simply because it is stimulating so much discussion/controvversy/debate. I mean, consider Lolita: that book disgusts me, but there is no denying its brillance or its place in the American lexicon. Hats off to you for articulating so clearly all the conflict this book generates.

Linda. .you hit it right on. I agree completely with you!

I also didn't quite understand the hype toward this book. I felt uncomfortable by the politics in the book and felt like it was a simple depiction of life when life is generally so complicated. There are so many more better books out there being written. This is not one of them.

Thank you so much for verbalizing what I have been thinking for months... I didn't get the hype- but then I realized that many ppl falsely believe this is an accurate insight into Afghanistan, a place so many ppl want to now understand.

There were some culturally interesting and informative passages, but this was not a good book; it was disturbing and meaninglessly so. The trauma of the US/USSR and post 9-11 confilct has not been done justice, the stories of the characters is too fanciful too many times, and the writing came across as a workshop piece.

I know there is a dearth of authentic Afghani voices in fiction, but that is going to change in the coming decade and Khaled Hosseini's first attempt has opened the door to better things.

Thank you so much for verbalizing what I have been thinking for months... I didn't get the hype- but then I realized that many ppl falsely believe this is an accurate insight into Afghanistan, a place so many ppl want to now understand.

There were some culturally interesting and informative passages, but this was not a good book; it was disturbing and meaninglessly so. The trauma of the US/USSR and post 9-11 confilct has not been done justice, the stories of the characters is too fanciful too many times, and the writing came across as a workshop piece.

I know there is a dearth of authentic Afghani voices in fiction, but that is going to change in the coming decade and Khaled Hosseini's first attempt has opened the door to better things.

I don't think we were supposed to feel sorry for main charachter/author or the priveleged class at all - he fully admits that many of the things he did were completely inexcusable, but he just says that he suffered too. And I considered it a strength of the book that the characters were so flawed and complex. It would have been a lot more "manipulative" if the author had sugar-coated the sotry. And even if some of the servant characters seemed subservient or brainwashed, that is the reader's own perspective as someone raised in an entirely different time and different culture. And yes the author may have benefited from his privelege, and experienced the uneasy guilt that comes along with that, but that's only human. I considered the author's honesty about his flaws ot be a strength, not a shortcoming, of the book.

I don't think we were supposed to feel sorry for main charachter/author or the priveleged class at all - he fully admits that many of the things he did were completely inexcusable, but he just says that he suffered too. And I considered it a strength of the book that the characters were so flawed and complex. It would have been a lot more "manipulative" if the author had sugar-coated the sotry. And even if some of the servant characters seemed subservient or brainwashed, that is the reader's own perspective as someone raised in an entirely different time and different culture. And yes the author may have benefited from his privelege, and experienced the uneasy guilt that comes along with that, but that's only human. I considered the author's honesty about his flaws ot be a strength, not a shortcoming, of the book.

I don't think we were supposed to feel sorry for main charachter/author or the priveleged class at all - he fully admits that many of the things he did were completely inexcusable, but he just says that he suffered too. And I considered it a strength of the book that the characters were so flawed and complex. It would have been a lot more "manipulative" if the author had sugar-coated the sotry. And even if some of the servant characters seemed subservient or brainwashed, that is the reader's own perspective as someone raised in an entirely different time and different culture. And yes the author may have benefited from his privelege, and experienced the uneasy guilt that comes along with that, but that's only human. I considered the author's honesty about his flaws ot be a strength, not a shortcoming, of the book.

It's nice to read that other readers had a problem with this book. Initially it was interesting because of the setting. But it is not well written. The irony is that the main character is learning to be an author. He comments on the use of cliches, but uses them anyway. One of the chapters ends with a foreshadowing that is a groaner. The plot crosses the line into the preposterous. The evil character is a Taliban and a Nazi, maybe because being a Taliban just wasn't bad enough. I wish I had not read the book at all. What a waste of my money and valuable time.

"I considered the author's honesty about his flaws to be a strength, not a shortcoming, of the book."

I agree with you Rachel.
I thought it was refreshing to read a book with such a despicable narrator. I didn't like Amir, but I liked that. Many of my classmates shared the negative and positive opinions that people have expressed here. I think Hosseini did an amazing job with this book, especially with his frequent allusions to the characters' eyes. My review for The Kite Runner would probably be a 4, but I share many of the expressed opinions about Amir. I've never felt so much frustration towards a main character as I did with him. But, I still loved this book, and I love reading some of these well-written, articulate, opposite opinions of it.

I deliberately read Linda's review since it was chosen as one of the best for the month - kudos to you!

Because this comment is so far from your original, I'm copying part of yours here:

"The members of the servant class in this story suffer tragic, unspeakable calamities, sometimes at the hands of our fine hero, and yet the novel seems to expect the reader to reserve her sympathies for the 'wronged' privileged child."

I believe you missed the author's intent if you think he wanted you to sympathize with Amir. Not until he redeems himself should the reader feel some empathy for him.

and another quote:

"Of course this elevation of / identification with the "wounded"/flawed hero goes hand in hand with an absolutely detestable portrayal of the members of the servant class as being at their utmost happiest when they are being their most servile and utterly subjugating their own needs, wants, desires, pleasures -- their own selves, in fact -- to the needs of their masters. (Even when they are protecting their masters from their own arrogance, heartlessness, or downright stupidity.)"

I don't remember too many passages in the book where Hassan or his father are depicted as happy no less as being "at their utmost happiest...."

"I don't see how the main character, Amir, could possibly be likeable."

An author is not required to make his main character likeable. If Amir had not been selfish, mean, privileged, etc., then the themes of the story would not have evolved.

Sorry, you missed the main idea of the book. (You never mention Hassan's sacrifice for his friend.)

Yes, ironically I thought it was courageous of the author to admit to being so cowardly.