Question #6: Roger and Abdul Wahid

[Lauren]

In Chapter 13, Roger and Abdul Wahid meet for the first time. On page 176 (in the paperback edition), Ms. Simonson writes, “Moreover [the Major] found himself eager to inflict his guest upon Roger – or perhaps to inflict them on each other, in hope of jolting both out of their moral complacency.” What did she mean by this? What do Abdul Wahid and Roger represent within the novel?

[Carol]

Haven't thought this through as much as others. The boys did both have a similar personality, but I think the major "liked" Abdul more than he liked his own son. There were several times when the Major commented on how his son was raised, and wondered if it was his fault. I liked the relationship and working reltionship Abdul and the Major had. They seemed to have mutual respect for each other which I liked the way it evolved. To see how the two of them complimented each other was really good. Roger and Abdul on the other hand seemed to bring some of the bad traits they each had out. Their culture, race, etc, played a part in this. Mrs. Ali found a struggle with Abdul and his Son in this vein too.

[Ashley]

Another good question, Lauren. I had to ponder for quite some time. Abdul Wahid is too firm in beliefs--too unwilling to compromise, see shades of gray. Roger, on the other hand, is easily swayed by outside perceptions of himself or status. The two of them need a dose of the other person's personality. Abdul Wahid needs softening; Roger needs to harden. I had to roll the phrase "moral complacency" about in my mind quite a bit, as I couldn't quite determine what Simonson/the Major meant, but perhaps what is implied is that Roger and Abdul Wahid are quite morally/philosophically LAZY. It's intellectually lazy to keep the world neatly categorized in black and white (Abdul Wahid), and it's equally lazy to have no personal beliefs or views whatsoever (Roger).

[Alisha]

I agree with the statement about laziness. Neither of them are seeking growth (something I'm sure they would both deny). It is easy and comfortable for them to be the person they are.

[Lauren]

I like the laziness angle. I read one review of the book (which is what instigated this question) about how Roger and Abdul Wahid are two sides of the same coin - Roger worships money and bases his entire world view around that; Abdul Wahid uses religion to define his view. By allowing a belief to dictate what they should think (and viewing the world in black and white), it enables them to be lazy.