Terrorist by John Updike

Terrorist is the story of a teenage boy in New Jersey who is enlisted into a plot to carry out a devastating attack on America. Ahmad Mulloy Ashmawy is the son of an Arab father (who abandoned them) and American mother (of Irish descent). He grows up devoutly religious, not through any effort of his mother's but for some ambiguous reasons the auther fails to fully identify. All the other characters are essentially worthless to the plot, even the school guidance counselor, Jack Levy, who gets almost as much time as Ahmad.

Evidently a lot of people love this man's writing, but they must be loving something else because this book is about worthless. Forgetting the issue of PC-ness he broaches by having an Arab-American as the terrorist of the title, it's just not very likely. Other reviewers have said that he chose this character as his instrument to reflect on the state of America today, and his origin serves solely as a plot device to cause his disaffection with this society. But I think if that's the case, it's a weak and unnecessary device, given that there are plenty of Americans who are as disaffected and more prone to violence than some half-Arab New Jersey teenager. As a matter of fact, although it's a topic not often discussed, the main terrorist threat in America comes from white Christian extremists. These people aren't even theoretical; they've actually been responsible for real terrorist acts all over the United States.

Be that as it may, Updike is one of the least astute character writers I've ever read. If anyone reading this doesn't like that assessment, I suggest picking up Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" or "The Brothers Karamazov". Now that's some character writing. I just felt like he endlessly described people's outsides and never touched their insides. It's a book, which means that you have the ability to show the reader the thoughts and feelings of a person, but not to adequately depict their facial expressions or colorations (in other words, it's not a picture). And yet he rarely took the opportunity to get inside anyone's mind, even the main character Ahmad's. And what little internal narration he did give Ahmad was pretty much the same thing over and over again. As for the other characters, he may have intended them to be mockeries of real people instead of making them real people, but if he was doing that I certainly didn't pick up any hints of satire to clue me in. The whole book was dead serious, and dead boring.

I tend to lump all books into two main categories: they're either about the characters or the plot. Given that the characters were such a failing in this book, you might be tempted to think the plot redeems it in some way. You would be wrong. The story itself advances slowly with about three-fourths of the book being wasted in unnecessary build-up (which would be fine if there were decent characters, but as it is...). The climax is so anti-climactic it actually made me sleepy. There's absolutely no payoff in the end.

If you're a fan of this guy, perhaps this book could work for you. For me, it was an unfortunate reading choice and a complete waste of time. If you want to read books about domestic terrorists that are just as implausible but a lot more exciting, pick up Tom Clancy.