Literary Fiction by People of Color discussion
book discussions
>
Discussion: The Kindness of Enemies
Beverly wrote: "I understood Anna's decision to want to hold on to her baby but in that rough terrain and the possibility of attack I could not imagine how she thought she could just "hold" on to her.I wondered ..."
An excruciating choice
As a mother one's first instinct is to protect your child at all cost. However, under the circumstances of the rough terrain and no means to secure Lydia and seeing how well the men were handling Alexander, I hope I would have chosen to pass the baby to one of the attackers.
Her actions made sense to me because she did not view her captors as equals - she saw them as savages. She suffered from "Russian privilege", or, more accurately, "Georgian privilege". She felt that if she let go of her child, anything could happen. The best thing that she thought that she could do was to hold on to her child as tightly as she could. Tragically it wasn't tightly enough.
Her sense of privilege, not to mention royalty, misled her at every turn. She didn't go to safety when she should have, she took time to pack when she shouldn't have, she could not conceive of her enemies being able to cross the river when her horses could not. She believed that her husband could protect her and even after she was captured, she believed that he could rescue her quickly. She was a princess and this kind of thing was not supposed to happen to her.
Parts IV - VI Open for Discussion In this section we learn more about Natasha's childhood and her leaving her father/religion and in many ways her identity and how she finds a place to belong.
Have your feelings/thoughts about Natasha changed from the first section? Are you sympathetic to her plights and tribulations?
We see another side of Imam Shamil - both personal and professional. Is he too concerned about getting his son Jamaleldin back at the expense of his objectives for fighting the Russians?
We also see more of Jamaleldin and the Tsar who previously had a master plan on how to use Jamaleldin against his father now changes his strategy and gives Jamaleldin a choice and the storyline foreshadows his decision will not go well. Which begs the question - can you go home again or it is better to stay where you are even though your past will always be an issue?
Beverly wrote: "I also felt what in the world is Anna thinking when she is spending the time packing!!! I was like really but she was assuming that her husband had everything under control and would be there in ti..."A couple of months after I read TKOE, I read another novel (The Septembers of Shiraz) about a Jewish couple living in Shiraz during and immediately after the fall of the Shah. Even after the husband is arrested and spends several months in jail for no reason other than being a non-Muslim, the wife is slow to pack and agree to leaving the country. It's as if she can't get her mind around the reality of the risk of staying and delays taking practical steps that will save their lives. I understood Anna's slowness to action here to be a combination of what you said, Beverly, that she's accustomed to relying on her husband for the practical - physical safety - and has difficulty simultaneously processing his failure (having put her in this position) and acting in order to safely escape.
The Caucasus region seems to be a diverse region where in the past and the present many nations/groups fought for control of this region and the native groups fought back and/or entered into agreements with other groups and/or countries.I found this map helpful - it displays the ethno-linguistic groups in the Caucasus region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avars_(...
Yes, this is nice, but simplistic as well. One of the interesting things is that these language groups are mostly unrelated to each other, although all of them borrow words from the various historic conquerors. Armenian has lots of foreign words from Turkish, Farsi, even a bit of Greek but aside from being sort of Indo-European, it's not related to any of them or anything else. The map doesn't show any non-Armenian groups in that country, aside from some Kurds. That wasn't true before independence, but it is now, because they ran all the Azeris and others out of the country after independence. the Soviets drew up the current borders in the 20s to keep the 3 groups of the Southern Caucasus at each other's throats and dependent on them for for security, but it was just a variant of what Czarist Russia did earlier. The Kurds who live there aren't Muslim, they're Yazidi, very non-Muslim and much despised and persecuted by the Muslims. Tblisi fell during the Muslim conquest and was controlled by Arabs for an extended period. Armenia was the first officially Christian country in the world and is filled with historic churches, many if not most of which were at least partially destroyed in different Islamic conquests. The Georgians and the Armenians are surrounded by Muslims, but don't entirely get along with each other, and the Armenians are very pro-Russian, but the Georgians, not so much. You'd think they would be entirely anti-Muslim, but they're more selective The Georgians have reconstructed the old Arab part of town to attract Iranian and Turkish tourists. Armenia is fairly pro-Iranian as during their war with Azerbaijan, the Iranians were their lifeline for consumer goods and kept them running.
Plus, the map basically mostly shows what we refer to as the Caucasus, but the peoples extend into Anatolia, now Turkey and to a lesser extent in Iran. The Armenians had extended kingdoms there, including one period when they controlled territory from the Black Sea to the Med. They were there before the Turks, who are relative newcomers to the region. There are several hundred thousand Armenians in Iran even now, far fewer in Turkey. but there are also Chechen people in Turkey and Circassian as well, and in parts of the Middle East.
so, it's quite messy by any standard. I lived in Armenia for several years and visited both Georgia and Azerbaijan. Lived in Turkey for a year as well. Never made it to the Northern Caucasus. Not a good place for a vacation, never has been. sort of like the Balkans, but more mixed up
.
Wow. Thank you for the valuable education. I knew it was, shall we say, complicated. Reality is substantially beyond that description.
Complicated really is an understatement! Thanks, George!
Mod
George thanks for the informative insights.It certainly is complicated and ever changing.
As I am reading this part of the book - Imam Shamil is fighting the Russians in what is being called the Caucasian War.
It seems that Queen Victoria was glad that Imam Shamil was fighting the Russians as England did want Russia to turn their resources/attention to India.
Then there is the Crimean War.
As stated this is a very complicated history but I do think the author is doing a good job of keeping it at a level for the reader to get a sense of the time and place.
And naming places/events/people so if interested can do research.
Beverly wrote: "George thanks for the informative insights.It certainly is complicated and ever changing.
As I am reading this part of the book - Imam Shamil is fighting the Russians in what is being called the..."
@Beverly, I agree. This was one of the best historical fiction books I've read in the last several years at not letting the narrative get bogged down with factual details and historical context, except to the extent those details were necessary to the immediate characters' experience. It's a difficult balance to strike and Aboulela excelled at it with TKOE.
"Beverly wrote: "I also felt what in the world is Anna thinking when she is spending the time packing!!! Carole wrote: I read another novel (The Septembers of Shiraz) about a Jewish couple living in Shiraz during and immediately after the fall of the Shah. Even after the husband is arrested and spends several months in jail for no reason other than being a non-Muslim, the wife is slow to pack and agree to leaving the country.."
It seems to me like the impulse of all people living in relatively privileged circumstances is to cling to their possessions and the way of life those possessions represent, too overwhelmed to see that they are facing an existential threat. It's just too big a mental and emotional leap. It's inconceivable to them that they could sink into homelessness - or worse. I think of the Jews in Nazi Germany as a mega example.
I don't think I'm spoiling anything to say that later in TKOE another character makes some packing decisions too in the face of wrenching circumstances......
In the very beginning of this book discussion, there were posts comparing this book's three different covers. After finishing the book, I'm appreciating the one with the figure of Shamil surrounded by a series of shadowy silhouettes. As I look at the picture, I can't quite tell if the silhouettes are behind his image or in front of it, or both. It makes me think of him in relation to past and future Islamic struggles - within Islam and with the rest of the world. It's an echo-y kind of picture.....
The pain of losing one's child. Although Anna's was more traumatic (or was it?) I'm sure the author wanted us to see it was no less devastating than Shamil's. And to set the stage for their shared misery.
Nadine wrote: "In the very beginning of this book discussion, there were posts comparing this book's three different covers. After finishing the book, I'm appreciating the one with the figure of Shamil surrounded..."That is a perceptive interpretation of the cover.
And it does connect to what we know is one of the author's themes what is like to be a Muslim in different times.
William wrote: "The pain of losing one's child. Although Anna's was more traumatic (or was it?) I'm sure the author wanted us to see it was no less devastating than Shamil's. And to set the stage for their shared ..."Yes, they can connect on that shared misery.
I am not quite sure if I believe that Lydia was buried in the churchyard. I could understand how that would be said to help ease some of Anna's pain to know that her child was buried.
One of my favorite chapters in this part was the one where Shamil goes to see Sheikh Jamal el-Din (his mentor) before going to see his family after the battle.I found it to be a very intimate and eloquent chapter in the sense of who Shamil is/wants to be.
I also sensed futility and wariness in him.
When I was reading about Jamaleldin and his going back to his father/family/home.My idea drifted to how children taken by Native Americans and then for different reasons were released to back to their family/relatives had a hard time adjusting and/or being accepted by family/society especially if they were held for several years or more.
I am wondering how Jamaleldin will feel once he reaches his father.
Also thinking about Alexander - who seems to be accepting of his circumstances and likes being singled out by Shamil. Of course this is a position that other children captured do have. He is at an impressible age who will be if released by Shamil.
In the present day story with Natasha we see how she has worked hard to "fit in" by what others see is a dark-skinned Muslim woman.
Parts VII - IX Open For Discussion The storylines are winding down and the issues of identity are forefront in the characters.
What do think the author is saying about religious identity and belonging?
The authors uses dreams so the readers so we can gain character insight. How does the author use dreams to discuss duality?
In the Washington Post book review Ron Charles uses the term "Stockholm syndrome" to apply to Princess Anna and Jamaleldin.Here is a link to the review:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entert...
Here is a definition of Stockholm syndrome:
People suffering from Stockholm syndrome come to identify with and even care for their captors in a desperate, usually unconscious act of self-preservation. It occurs in the most psychologically traumatic situations, often hostage situations or kidnappings, and its effects usually do not end when the crisis ends.
What do you think this affected Princess Anna and Jamaleldin?
Beverly wrote: "In the Washington Post book review Ron Charles uses the term "Stockholm syndrome" to apply to Princess Anna and Jamaleldin.Here is a link to the review:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entert......"
I'll have to think of this for awhile. It's a great question. My immediate reaction for Princess Anna is, "no". There's a difference between being exposed to a culture, perspective, thoughts, experiences you haven't had before and realizing that they impact you, and Stockholm Syndrome (best contemporary example is Patty Hearst, I suspect). A third explanation is simply propinquity. Stockholm Syndrome could apply to Jamaleldin. Or it could be that he was so young and impressionable at the time of his capture, he was easily influenced by the positive aspects of his surroundings, and the people he got to know in that setting. More thought is in order.
Mod
Mod
Natasha’s perceived homelessness, Imam Shamil’s pain and humiliation at losing his young son to the Tsar and Jamaluldin’s feelings of growing up in Russia as an outsider..... I say funny because even though those stories are done extremely well, I also felt this was a very political novel and the issues are overtly played out. She mentioned it may sound disingenuous for her to claim this with the nature of the issues raised in the book. I wouldn't say that exactly because only she would know her true intentions. However, this book seemed quite political to me particularly as played out in the Oz situation and his arrest. Profiling.
Also, is there a difference between a political and protest novel? I've often heard "protest novel" most particularly with the essay Baldwin wrote about Native Son. Just wondering.
Carol wrote: "I'll have to think of this for awhile. It's a great question. My immediate reaction for Princess Anna is, "no". There's a difference between being exposed to a culture, perspective, thoughts, experiences you haven't had before and realizing that they impact you, and Stockholm Syndrome (best contemporary example is Patty Hearst, I suspect)"I agree with Carol. There's a difference between Stockholm Syndrome and just learning to see people whom you saw as enemies as human beings. If Anna had Stockholm Syndrome, she would have married Shamil, converted to Islam, and never gone home. Instead she just thinks about new ways of looking at the world and herself. Jamaleldin was so young that he basically grew up Russian. He would naturally be more comfortable in Russian culture. But he loved and honored his family and did not denounce them. He was just raised to believe in the superiority of Russian culture.
Columbus wrote: "It's funny the author stated in her interview in LitHub that writing about the characters, their thoughts and emotions were paramount and more important to her than writing a political novel....."If you don't put character first, you probably have a pretty bad novel! I would definitely consider this novel political - you can't imagine this novel being written before 9/11 - but I would not call it a protest novel. The characters live in 2 settings which are defined by particular political circumstances, but their big issues are more about identity and belonging than about objecting to the political circumstances.
I'm trying to think of novels other than Native Son that I would call "protest novels". I agree that Native Son is definitely one and I think that the characters suffer as a result.
Columbus wrote: "It's funny the author stated in her interview in LitHub that writing about the characters, their thoughts and emotions were paramount and more important to her than writing a political novel....N..."
Interesting question.
Yes, the author has stated that when writing she is concerned with the characters but she has also stated that she writes what it is like to be a Muslim in a contemporary world. So does that make it a political novel or just reality?
Earlier I had posted a question about religious identity which is one of many types of identities we all have. I thought about this as I was reading this book because as I am Protestant/Christian which is the norm in the US this does not really come into account as I go about my daily life. This would be a different issue if I lived is some other country where it is not the norm.
For me being Black is the identity that is concern of others and the one that most would note along with being a woman that evokes expectations.
But with this Muslim "frenzy" in the US and Europe - it is probably the most prominent identity to others.
With Natasha - she tried to fit into the world and manage their expectations. So she changed her last name, followed the rules. But when her university wanted some to be trained to identify if any students were being radicalized - she did not feel she could say no because it would be seen as sympathizing and/or one who believes/supports the radicalized Muslim group. But her colleagues could say no and they were not thought of any differently.
Oz caught the attention of the officials and was picked up and was assumed guilty and treated as a criminal until those in charge were satisfied that he was not a "threat".
So while being a Muslim may not be called into play every day but you never know when it will be and but too often it feels like it is a target on your back.
So author may not have started out for it to be a "political" novel but it is the pressing political of our current time.
Not sure what categories a political novel or a protest novel but this book did not really discuss or speak to "political" issues or harped on changing the political situation - I do not know if that makes a difference.
Columbus wrote: "Yes, Beverly and George thanks so much for all this helpful information. Isn't one of Shamil's wives Armenian?"Sorry - I didn't respond sooner.
Yes, one of his wives is Armenian.
But it seems like his marriages are for "political' reasons as was common in these times. Not sure how conscious it was but it seems Shamil sees this as way to perhaps win over some of the leaders in the region of his wives.
Beverly wrote: "Nadine wrote: "In the very beginning of this book discussion, there were posts comparing this book's three different covers. After finishing the book, I'm appreciating the one with the figure of Sh..."I think on page 282 (hard copy) the last sentence might give us some hint to the design of the US cover.
"Sometimes in the dreams, she did actually see his face. But more often than not there was only his silhouette."
Hmmm..political or protest? I found the over-arching theme of the novel to be religious. But I suppose to defend, endorse, and explain Islam in today's society is to be both political and a protest. Not often do we hear of the magical/mystical aspects of Sufiism nor the peace and well-being bestowed on the true believers of Islam.My initial reaction to Anna's "coziness" with Shamil was that she indeed was suffering from Stockholm syndrome and had a shared pain with him of losing children. And that the dream sequences were the cement that glued them together. Being told repeatedly of her worthlessness by Shamil's first wife then "rescued" when he came home reinforced this dynamic.
But as others have pointed out Jamaladin was young and impressionable . Russia was all he knew in his development so he easily absorbed their culture.
I wouldn't call what Anna felt Stockholm syndrome, though. I think she fell a little bit in love. He was a charismatic man and he saw her as valuable - not just as a hostage or a wife or a mother, but as royalty. That could be enough to keep a man in your dreams.
While Anna was held in captivity for far less time than Jamalaldin, towards the end of her captivity when it looked like her husband/Russia wasn't going to agree to the ransom terms, Anna started to think about her life in terms being part of Shamil's harem and what value she would bring.Another way Anna and Shamil bonded was about Georgia. Anna was not happy that her husband was being so "Russian" while she wanted to retain her Georgian identity and enjoyed that Shamil called her Queen Anna of Georgia.
There is no doubt that Jamaleldin loved his father/brother/grandmother but he also knew that not only would there be many who would not accept him but he needed to "relearn" his culture and would have to forgo all the parts of a more "modern" society that he had learned to enjoy.
Here is a link to the review in The Scotsman - whose tagline is "Scotland's National Paper". The review was written in Aug. 2015 as the book was released in Britain before the US.http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/cul...
I agree with Mina that feelings Anna and her son aren't really Stockholm syndrome in nature. there are various factors at work in my opinion. you can see early on how she bristles at being called Russian by her captors, she's Georgian. It's an insult to call her Russian. she's not Muslim, but she's very much part of the Caucasus and the loss of Georgian independence and subservience to Russia rankles her almost as much as the thought of losing independence rankles Shamil. Her husband's ability to identify with Russia and the empire embarrasses her as does her grandfather's action to barter away Georgian independence, however much it may make sense to her intellectually. She has no idea what her husband has been doing on her behalf but she thinks that since he wasn't there to defend her and their children and people the very least he should have been putting together a raid to rescue her.
so to me, a good part of what's going on is her admiration of Shamil's fierce independence and absolute unwillingness to surrender his land or his identity to the Russian empire regardless of the odds. She feels a kinship with him she doesn't feel with the Russians.
of course, the fact that he is a mighty warrior, and intelligent and good looking, and loving of his wives and children doesn't hurt, it makes him a very masculine ideal, much to her surprise since that wasn't at all what she had expected.
Shamil is also manipulating Anna though, calling her "Princess Anna" and encouraging her to dream of being the royal head of a Georgia freed from Russian control. His goal of seizing and ruling Georgia would be helped by restoring Anna as a royal figurehead. Marrying her would a political advantage for him.
well, uniting a good chunk of the Caucasus would not be without value against the Russians to be sure, although I doubt it would have been enough. how acceptable such a marriage would have been to the Georgians is also questionable, considering she was already married and was taken by Shamil, so I don't see such things as much more than a pipe dream
George wrote: "how acceptable such a marriage would have been to the Georgians is also questionable, considering she was already married and was taken by Shamil, so I don't see such things as much more than a pipe dream ..."I agree that it was a pipe dream, but so was his aim to drive the Russians out by that point. That didn't have to stop him from fighting or making improbable political calculations.
What are other possible explanations for Shamil continually call her Princess Anna? He was of royal lineage himself (according to biographical info linked to in this discussion, not mentioned in the book itself that I remember), maybe deep down he feels a pride in his status that gives him a sense of kinship with other royals/elites. The Tsar certainly feels that way about him later in the novel. Shamil was bleeding allies and deserted by village leaders, which must have made him feel resentful toward 'the plebes'.
well, she did say herself that she wanted to be addressed by her title, did she not? nothing to lose by doing so, I would think and perhaps something to gain, something short of a united front with the Georgians, like her assistance in getting a larger ransom. or perhaps, a reasonable public account of his treatment of her once she was released. no way to truly say, of course.
Is it inconceivable that these two people were attracted to each other? In the book, Shamir is surprised when he realizes that, if the ransom deal falls through, he doesn't want to marry her off to someone else - he wants her for himself. And long after there is any strategic value in cultivating an alliance with Anna, there is still a connection and the promise of sending her a dream. I think that he addressed her as Princess Anna because that was how he saw her and, because of him, she regained that sense of herself as Georgian royalty.
Wilhelmina wrote: "Is it inconceivable that these two people were attracted to each other? In the book, Shamir is surprised when he realizes that, if the ransom deal falls through, he doesn't want to marry her off to..."I agree. I thought they were.
Carol wrote: "Wilhelmina wrote: "Is it inconceivable that these two people were attracted to each other? In the book, Shamir is surprised when he realizes that, if the ransom deal falls through, he doesn't want ..."I think that Shamil's character is ambiguous enough to generate competing ideas about his motives - and that's part of what makes Shamil such a fascinating character and why I liked the book so much!
Its not that Anna did not suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, she certainly did if you categorize her actions in the context of the definition of it, but that there was more to her motivations and circumstances than just that sydrome. Here is the Wiki definition and besides the rebelling against police part she fits. "There are four key components that generally lead to the development of Stockholm syndrome: a hostage's development of positive feelings towards their captor, no previous hostage-captor relationship, a refusal by hostages to cooperate with police forces and other government authorities, and a hostage's belief in the humanity of their captor, for the reason that when a victim holds the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat"
Based on how Shamil is portrayed in the book - I thought he was a charismatic charming man who was comfortable in his skin. As how his wives are portrayed in the book - they each seemed to appeal to a specific need in him and while they each seemed to also fit into his scheme/plan/goals and he seems to like them.
Shamil lost Fatima which seemed the wife that gave him children, especially sons more than his other wives. I think he liked Anna but the deal was sealed when he saw her holding his newborn daughter and knew how much she would want more children.
I chuckled to myself when it was mentioned that there were rumors that the Russians had give Jamaleldin a slow-releasing poison before they released him to explain his symptoms.I thought the Russians and their poisons!
Beverly wrote: "I chuckled to myself when it was mentioned that there were rumors that the Russians had give Jamaleldin a slow-releasing poison before they released him to explain his symptoms.I thought the Russ..."
Because skills. Indeed.
Columbus wrote: "Also, is there a difference between a political and protest novel? I've often heard "protest novel" most particularly with the essay Baldwin wrote about Native Son. Just wondering...."Interesting, Beverly, that your post about poet Airea D. Matthews had a link to an earlier article in the series about poet Clint Smith who talks about protest and political writing. Here's the link:
http://lithub.com/clint-smith-on-prot...
Wilhelmina wrote: "Columbus wrote: "Also, is there a difference between a political and protest novel? I've often heard "protest novel" most particularly with the essay Baldwin wrote about Native Son. Just wondering...."Wilhelmina -
Thanks for sharing this article.
I to agree with what the poet said and so started thinking about the question posted - Is The Kindness of Enemies a political novel in light of the author saying she did not start out writing a political novel but was more concerned with the character development?
But then it reminded me of a discussion I was having with a couple of friends regarding the proposed "healthcare" changes and the lack of empathy by those proposing the changes to imposed on the poor and elderly.
Then we were reminded that reading fiction moves people to empathy as studies have proven.
So if art can't be separated from being political then the book is a "political" novel. But I do think that if a novel is announced as a political novel then it seems that those concerned with that "political" will be attracted to the book and yet those who do not want a "political" novel may pass on the book and perhaps miss out on learning to empathize with the issues the book speaks to.
Literary Fiction by People of Color
Books mentioned in this topic
Blood of the Dawn (other topics)The Septembers of Shiraz (other topics)
A Long Way Gone:Autobiography of a Boy Soldier (other topics)
Lyrics Alley (other topics)
The Kindness of Enemies (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ishmael Beah (other topics)Leila Aboulela (other topics)
I wondered if I was in that position what I would have done - would I have handed my baby to a stranger who was abducting me but probably knew how to secure things on that horrific ride or taking my chances with be holding on to her without any strapping to make her more secure.