Constant Reader discussion
Reading List
>
A Case of Exploding Mangoes - DISCUSSION
date
newest »
newest »
have eventually finished this book but found it utter drivel, A whole host of stories that had no inter connection until the last few chapters. Impossible to follow and uninteresting. I would not give it any stars if i had the choice. Supposed to be satirical and contain Humour - i wpuld like to know where
I am about 70% through and I like this book. For me, it is very original and thought provoking. Marie, I have had similar reactions to other books or movies that many people describe as "funny." Humor - especially dark satire - is a very individual taste. I am very receptive to political satire, so I found myself smiling a lot during the first part of the book. The situation has now become rather horrifying.
More later.
Wow! That last 30% of the novel pretty much flew by. It tied up a lot and left some things either unresolved or resolved in unconventional ways.Thanks for suggesting this novel, Emily. You have raised lots of interesting questions. Since I just finished, I will take up your question of what actually killed General Zia.
I found an interesting 2012 interview of Hanif by NPR: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/1533038...
In this interview Hanif said he started out exploring the plane crash as straight journalism, but there were so many confusing conspiracy theories that he felt he could never find the truth. Instead, he decided to tell his own version in a novel.
In the novel, Zia's life was threatened on all fronts: the snake poison on the sword point, the gas in the plane's air conditioner, the crow that flew into the transport plane, and the strong possibility that those mangoes were poisoned. At the end, the soldier who finds the pieces of his body thinks "It seems like he died many times over." (page 323)
That's kind of the way I thought of it. Any one of these causes was bound to get Zia in the end. He was simply fated to die in that huge plane.
The last line in the book is the Arabic phrase from the Koran that the prophet Jonah reportedly repeated over and over before he was released from the belly of the whale. He wasn't sure if this should be translated as:
"And I am one of those who oppressed their own souls."
or "I was wrong."
In any case, Zia could not escape from his own "whale" - the huge C130 plane he was flying in.
What do you think about the Arabic phrase, Emily? It seems to be a condemnation of the president no matter how you translate it.
It could be that the whale was the plane he was flying in. I actually interpreted the phrase earlier in the book as his conscience trying to "prick" him. However, when Zia finally decided that it was a sign stating that someone was trying to kill him, he stayed in the Army House. He was trying to avoid his fate, just like Jonah tried to avoid doing what God had commanded. Since Zia did not change his ways, your interpretation fits. He gets killed in his first excursion he makes outside his home. He can not escape the retribution for all his crimes.
Yes, I think the Arabic quotation is key because it is repeated at the end of the book and because, as you pointed out, concern with its meaning is what got the story rolling.I am having trouble understanding the concept of "oppressing" one's own soul. As far as I can figure out, it means that you are responsible for your own fate, not Allah, because you have sinned. That seems to be a lot stronger than the alternate translation: "I was wrong."
I wish we had a Muslim here to explain things. Browsing the internet, and probably taking things out of context, I found this excerpt from the Quran:
'29:40 Each one of them We seized for his crime: of them, against some We sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some were caught by a (mighty) Blast; some We caused the earth to swallow up; and some We drowned (in the waters): It was not Allah Who injured (or oppressed) them:" They injured (and oppressed) their own souls.
I think the role of religion in this books is really interesting. The only true believer seems to be President Zia, although his religious crying sprees and absurd fundamentalism make him an object of fun. I was surprised to read that after he wrote this book, the author moved back to Pakistan. I would have thought that it would be dangerous for him because of the way he satirizes religion, the government, and the military.
I read that some of the author's friends thought he presented too favorable an impression of Zia. To me he seemed more like an ineffective bumbler than a downright evil person like General Akhtar.
What do you think, Emily?
Haven't read all the comments yet, but the few I did read were polar opposites, so I had to buy it. :)I've only read the first page, but he certainly can draw a picture.
As soon as I finish my current read, I'll dive in.
Cateline,I would love to have your input on this book. I think there is a lot to discuss; Emily posted a lot of good questions in her introductory note.
So I am wondering what happened to the people who voted for this book. Did you bale on it? If you didn't like it, why?
Ann wrote: "...So I am wondering what happened to the people who voted for this book. Did you bale on it? If you didn't like it, why? ..."
I've been away from CR for a while and fully intended to read the last 2 books for group discussion. Sorry to be vague, but at first I was intrigued by the novel, but kind of lost interest and didn’t finish. This is probably more a comment about my own malaise this winter and catching up on tons of recorded movies as opposed to reading of late.
Ann, I read the book, but I chose not to discuss it. He does not really portray the soul of the people, or of the nation of Pakistan. He treated it as a joke, and the leaders as bumbling idiots. There are far deeper roots, due to The Partition, which goes back to centuries of colonization.
I don't think the author is treating the problems in Pakistan as a joke. Satire isn't a way to joke, but a way to show the contradictions of life. There are problems in Pakistan that go back to colonization, but there comes a time when a country has to put the past behind them and start working on the vital issues of the people. The countries in Africa that look to the future are becoming successful, while those that keep dwelling on the past are in chaos.I do find it disappointing that this book isn't being discussed. I can't figure out how it got selected based on the participation.
Carol,Thanks for sharing your reaction to this book. I really like political satire,but if I am honest, it doesn't appeal to me nearly as much if it is attacking people or things that I genuinely respect.
In defense of this book, I would like to point out that it was written by a Pakistani journalist. He had been living in the UK for 10 years when he wrote it, but moved back to Pakistan shortly after it was published. As far as I can determine, he is still there.
I don't think the satire is directed at the Pakistani people as a whole; the targets are primarily General Zia,the military and the Pakistani ISI - the military controlled national intelligence service.
Zia was responsible for supporting Islamic fundamentalism and fostering the use of sharia law. Under this legal system, there is very little difference between rape and adultery. If a woman brings a charge of rape and does not have 4 witnesses, she can in turn be accused of adultery. Hanif satirizes this situation with the subplot of the blind woman who is imprisoned because she cannot identify the perpetrators of her rape or provide witnesses. The legal changes have been very bad for women and minorities. See this interesting 2013 article: http://www.ibtimes.com/who-killed-gen...
The United States does not escape from the satire in this book either. Ironically, the U.S. strongly supported both Zia's government and the mujahedin Afghans (including Osama bin Laden) who fought against the Russian occupiers of Afghanistan. The U.S. funneled its extensive financial and military support through Pakistan. These Afgahn fundamentalists later became the Taliban.
Hanif's book has been compared to Catch-22. The American satire seems to have a more frantic quality than this one, but I can see the similarities. As Emily said, the underlying purpose is serious. The reader is expected to evaluate his/her assumptions and change accordingly.
Anyway, that's my take on a book I obviously liked. I do have to admit that I got somewhat bogged down in the middle when the main character just kept getting tortured. I hate reading about brutality. But then I got to a really serious part involving the "secretary-general" labor activist that Ali Shigri met in prison. That part blew me away. The story also really picked up in the last third and there was a lot more action.
I just finished the book this morning. I enjoyed it a lot even though at times it was very confusing and I had to reread parts. Ann, I enjoyed your link to the article on his unsolved murder. Hanif certainly has an imagination. I felt that this book was deadly serious. It certainly has lessons that our government could use - that to interfere too deeply is to create monsters to be dealt with in the future. Did anyone think that maybe Obaid and Shigri had a sexual relationship?
Gina,I am so glad you have joined us. I agree with you that the book was confusing in parts. In one section, I thought Ali was confined to the fortress, then he was suddenly back in the barracks but being tracked by a security guard. Maybe the use of flashback messed me up.
I thought that the basis of Obaid and Shigri's relationship was friendship, but there was definitely one sexual scene involving what I thought was Obaid giving his friend a hand job. I ended up thinking that Obaid definitely had romantic feelings for his friend, but was not so sure about Shigri. Any way you look at it Shigri's feelings for Obaid were very deep, but he also seemed very interested in those women in the magazines.
For me, Obaid (aka "Baby O") was the most likable character in the book. He was such an innocent - hence the nickname "baby." His whole involvement in the plot was a ploy to keep his friend from doing something that would get him killed. And how could I not love another "constant reader," who didn't get off the doomed plane because he had to finish his book.
Incidentally, what do you think the significance was of all that silent drilling? I saw how he worked it into the plot at the end, but I felt it must be a metaphor of some kind too.
Ann, I did start Mangos. Somehow, though, I have a Faulkner hangover, and can't seem to get into the rhythm of this book. Maybe it's too drastic a change for me.
I do think this author is fairly descriptive, but just falls flat (for me) at this moment in my reading time.
Maybe later. I'm sorry.
I found that General Akhtar was the most frightening character in the book. He was conniving and so ambitious. When I understood he was one of the plotters to kill President Zia, it became clear why Shigri and Obaid were released from prison. It was sheer ecstasy to see the General squirm when he saw he might be trapped on the doomed plane. As he futilely struggled to find a reason not be on the plane, I thought of the story of Haman in the Old Testament book of Esther. Haman built a huge gallows for his enemy, but ended up being hung on it instead.Hanif implies that General Beg was complicit in the plot to kill Zia. There has been suspicion for years that he was involved. This book was published in 2008. In 2012, General Beg, who is still alive, was publicly accused of the murder of Zia and many of the generals. It looks like he killed off the competition, leaving him in power in Pakistan. http://tribune.com.pk/story/476508/wh...
Thanks for the link to that interesting article, Emily. So many people wanted Zia dead! He had been in power long enough to create a lot of enemies.I agree with you about General Akhtar. He was much more frightening than Zia.
What did you think of Ali's father, whose death he was intent on avenging? He was supposed to have so much integrity, yet he helped build the torture system that imprisoned his son.
All is done in the name of religion - yet all the assassinations are carried out "with God's will." I don't understand. Power corrupts - no matter Allah or God.It's been interesting to look these characters up to see what they really looked like and to follow the story as it continues today. I'm surprised Hanif feels safe in Pakistan. General Beg is now 82 so evidently, he knows how to survive.
People in power frequently twist religion to support their aims, and most of the time they even convince themselves. Zia sure did.I was surprised about Hanif returning to Pakistan as well. I found this 2009 article explaining it:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009...
This is a more recent interview with him at the University of Texas. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/... In this article, he explains why he uses satire to discuss controversial issues. He reminds us that his novels are fiction, although not always recognized as such.
I’ve had … some [officials] take me into a corner and say, ‘Son, you’ve written a brilliant novel. Now tell me, who’s your source?’” Hanif said. “My God, these people are running my country and they actually believe all the lies that I’ve written.”
Ann, I enjoyed the 2009 article by Hanif. However, I can't get the link to work for the Daily Texan Online article.
I found this link. I think it is the same article. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/perso...He gives the reason for using satire to write his books. He says he 'often makes his work humorous as a way to provide levity for the people of Pakistan and make controversial issues easier to discuss.
“There’s a long history in Pakistan of making fun of stuff … because we live in such troubled times,” Hanif said. “It comes out of despair. It comes out of a kind of oppression that people know they are trying to live with, but they can’t. [The books] are a way for people to relate to that.”'
Thanks, Emily. Your link works, and mine doesn't. It is the same article I read.
I can't recall whether I voted for the book or not, but I did read it. Generally, I have trouble with reading satire. For some reason, the author's voice doesn't come through on the page, but the ridicule does. But in this case I think I got the satire, and liked the book.For example, the depiction of the relationship between Zia and his wife was quite satirical. There is a photo of him oogling a western woman's breasts in the newspaper. On the one hand, he is devout, on the other hand, he is so out of touch that he allows such a picture to be taken. Zia's wife waits in line with all the other needy women to confront her husband. But her flashy jewelry gives her away as not being like the other women at all. The contrasts are stark.
I agree with you about the wife, Mary Anne - especially that scene where she waited in line with the poor people. Zia's wife drove him crazy, but it really bothered him when she wasn't there as a sounding board. He comes across as something of a simpleton in the book. My guess is he was not.
I am sorry to be so late with this note. I jotted down a few thoughts after I finished the book and ran across them while cleaning up for our Easter lunch with the family. I enjoyed this novel. It was imaginative entertaining, serious, sardonic, and surprisingly humorous. I was surprised that Hanif presented General Zia's dependence on the Koran for guidance in both serious and frivolous questions, as mere superstition, but the whole tone of the novel was sarcastic and irreverent. However two incidents struck me as containing poignant truth. One was the annual alms donation to poor widows when the general's wife joined the queue, and returned all the jewelry he had given her announcing that she was moving into a separate bedroom. Another was the time the general borrowed a bicycle and sneaked off the military base where he enjoyed constant protection from assassination threats, to learn what the common people thought. His bumbling attempt to ride the bicycle and talk with someone outside his security zone was both funny and sad yet it illustrated how completely out-of-touch he was. Thank you Emily for nominating this unusual novel.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this book, Katy. I enjoyed it for many of the same reasons.
I finished reading this a few weeks ago without realising that it was being discussed here as well. This book was very funny and quirky but at the same time I thought really brave. Thanks Emily for the link, when I started reading the book I understood that this was a complete work of fiction inspired by a real event but the novel seemed so believable so I was no longer sure. Therefore, reading this article was helpful as the author says "... people are running my country and they actually believe all the lies that I’ve written", thanks.
swwords wrote: "I finished reading this a few weeks ago without realising that it was being discussed here as well. This book was very funny and quirky but at the same time I thought really brave. Thanks Emily ..."
I think it is telling that the people running the government in Pakistan actually believe what he wrote. I suspect there is much in the book that rings of truth, especially with people "in the know." That makes the book scary.
Zia was and still is a polarizing figure in Pakistan. He was credited by some, including America, for preventing wider Soviet incursions into the region, while being criticized by others for passing laws encouraging Islamic fundamentalism.
Wikipedia gives the following information about the plane crash, which was declared to be suspicious: "After witnessing a US M1 Abrams tank demonstration in Bahawalpur, Zia had left the small town in the Punjab province by C-1038 Hercules aircraft. Soon after the aircraft departed from Bahawalpur Airport, the control tower lost contact with the aircraft. Witnesses who saw the plane in the air afterward claim it was flying erratically, then nosedived and exploded on impact. In addition to Zia, 31 others died in the plane crash, including Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, close associate of Zia, Brigadier Siddique Salik, the American Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Lewis Raphel, and General Herbert M. Wassom, the head of the U.S. Military aid mission to Pakistan. The manner of Zia's death has given rise to many conspiracy theories. There is speculation that America, India, the Soviet Union (as retaliation for US-Pakistani supported attacks in Afghanistan) or an alliance of them and internal groups within Zia's military were behind the attack.
A board of inquiry was set up to investigate the crash. It concluded 'the most probable cause of the crash was a criminal act of sabotage perpetrated in the aircraft'. It also suggested that poisonous gases were released which incapacitated the passengers and crew, which would explain why no Mayday signal was given. There were also speculation into other facts involving the details of the investigation. A black box was not located after the crash, although previous C-130 airplanes did have them installed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad...
Using this historical event, Mohammed Hanif writes his satirical novel interweaving real people with imaginary characters. Ali Shigri, the protagonist, is a member of the Pakistan Air Force Academy. This seems like a grim place to be and, since the author is a graduate of the Academy, he seems to be writing from experience. Ali's father has died. The authorities claim his death was suicide, while Ali believes it a murder done by Zia. He is determined to avenge his father's death by killing Zia.
The plot is confusing at times. I am reading the book again and it makes more sense on a second reading. Here are some questions: Who killed Zia? Who or what brought down the plane? Was it the blind woman's curse? A crow? Ali Shigri and his troupe of outsiders? The Secretary-General's mangoes? Incidentally, there really were mangoes on the plane when it crashed, which is why Hanif includes them in the storyline.
Why did the author have Osama bin Laden have a walk-on part in the novel? Does the author hint at a reason for the implementation of strict Islamic laws? How do the rulers manipulate the law? Do they actually follow the laws they require of their citizens?
Does this novel resonate in today's world? As I am reading a novel about a suspicious air crash, a plane goes missing, heading for that part of the world. Instead of the Soviet Union leaving Afghanistan, the US is leaving Afghanistan. Pakistan is still in the news.
Zainab's plight shows us an aspect of the Zina Ordinances that is absurd. Under this ordinance, both the woman and man will be flogged with one hundred lashes if they have consensual sex while unmarried. And if they are married they are to be stoned to death provided the proof is found. That proof consists of four Muslim adult male witnesses who have witnessed the adultery. Unfortunately, the Zina Ordinance is fraught with legal ambiguities and the major flaw in this law is the fact that no distinction is made between adultery and rape. Rape is not considered a more heinous crime than adultery between consenting adults. The demarcation line between the two offences is so thin in practice, that when a woman comes into the court with a case of rape, she risks being convicted of adultery herself, if she cannot prove the rape. The onus of providing proof in a rape case rests with the woman herself. If she is unable to prove her allegation, bringing the case to court is considered equivalent to a confession of sexual intercourse without lawful marriage. This ordinance has been criticized by human rights and women's rights activists, lawyers and politicians over the years, but so far no attempt at repeal has been successful in Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad.... What do you think of Hanif including this issue in his book?
Hanif was shortlisted for the 2008 Guardian First Book Award and longlisted for the 2008 Man Booker Prize. It won the 2009 Commonwealth Book Prize in the Best First Book category. Do you think the book was deserving of all these honors?
If you are interested, this is the review from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/boo...