I disagree with the idea that the listed questions are “blunter and less interesting than the novel itself”. I think defining fundamentalism and evaluating its presence or lack thereof in America is crucial towards the reader’s understanding of the novel and of the wider conflict between the Middle East and the Western World. The novel itself contains other meaningful questions but I think this is one of the most prominent.

I disagree with what this person says, the American is being shown around in a place he is new to and Changez is being polite and showing him his culture and home. Yes the form is different but there is nothing wrong with the situation.

Since the American never speaks, and since Changez addresses him directly throughout (here's the first sentence: "Excuse me, sir, but may I be of assistance?"), the reader is placed in the listener's shoes, creating a convincing effect of intimacy and immediacy. This is a hard formal trick to pull off - even over the brief course of a novella - but Hamid manages it with admirable skill.

This statement makes me feel manipulated, but in a cool way. Whilst reading a very popular novel "The Hunger Games" written in first person, I begin to feel as if i'm the protagonist as it is written from the view of the main character. However, The Reluctant Fundamentalist is written at times where you feel like the American who is not the protagonist and that makes me feel somewhat controlled or manipulated, but in a cool way.

While the "war on terror" rumbles on, this is a sharp, relevant book. Executed with cool control, it is a microcosm of the cankerous suspicion between East and West. But, more than that, it is a piece of technically accomplished writing that entertains at the same time as it makes you think.

I agree with this statement, after reading very detailed and deep novels on this sort of topic it is not normally very entertaining but The Reluctant Fundamentalist finds ways to make it not seem so harsh at certain points and heavy at others which is an incredible skill.

This statement prompted me to think when it was described as a intelligent thriller. It made me think of the conventions of the genre of thriller and how the novel conforms to those conventions. While it is definitely not an action thriller, the ability to have the reader on edge throughout the book based on the thoughts it evokes from the reader does make it an intelligent thriller. 

I agree with this statement. Hamid has written a novel that has a strong, engaging storyline and makes you want to keep reading when you finish a chapter. But also writes in an intelligent, sophisticated manner, adding unanswered questions and addressing mature themes (such a small 9/11, which causes the reader to think about their own experiences relating to themes addressed in the book.

 I agree with this statement as the technique used by Hamid does dramatise antagonism and intimacy and that you are constantly reminded of the gulf between to the two characters through the limited dialogue between the two men, as the examples shown the in the excerpt above. 

“Near the end of the novel he is unconvincingly promising that the men who seem to be following them "mean you no harm". But perhaps the narrator is the prey. Having become an influentially "anti-American" spokesman, Changez might be a target for assassination. His companion has a satellite phone, and that bulge under his suit. Who has the power here?”

The Guardian

I agree with this statement. The statement is not explicitly saying something, however I agree with the opinion of the writer. I think that the end of the novel was interesting and really made me think about the book. I believe that “The American” is some sort of CIA agent or assassin. This is because of the clues hidden throughout the text. I think it’s interesting to think of the balance in power between the two. Who does have the power here? How does it end?

I agree with the author’s contention that the monologue style builds the atmosphere of uncertainty. I also agree that the author does a great job of leaving space for the reader to fill in the blanks, while also hinting at the real nature of the meeting. This uncertainty and murkiness makes the conversation, and the novel as a whole, very engaging to the reader, who is forced to come to their own conclusions about what is going on.

I disagree with this statement from The Telegraph Book Review. As we discussed in our last English class, I wouldn’t classify ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalists’ as a ‘thriller.’ Although the novel is intelligent in the way it is written and does have an element of some suspense and excitement, personally when reading this book I don’t think it has enough characteristics to be classified as a ‘thriller.’

“The Reluctant Fundamentalist is about the twisted, self-righteous, simplistic, and self-serving political path that Changez adopts. He isn’t a “reluctant” fundamentalist. Rather, he is a fairly deliberate and self-deluding one.”

The Yale Review

This statement made me think. I feel like it is a very bold statement, one that I didn’t really take into thought when reading the book. The statement labels Changez as self- righteous and almost narcissistic. I see how one could say that, however I am not sure whether I disagree or agree with the statement. The writer also blatantly labels Changez a Fundamentalist. I disagree with this.

 I disagree with this statement because at the end of the book I don’t believe there is enough evidence to indefinitely conclude that Changez becomes a terrorist. I believe that by the end you can only infer what happens. 

The reviewer makes a good point here. From the start of the novel, Changez always speaks with very aggressive terminology, he talks of being a ‘dictator’ and he talks of intellectual ‘titans’. Perhaps Hamid is trying to hint that there was always some anger within Changez. Perhaps it is meant to symbolise some inbuilt, subaltern anger toward their colonial masters, or maybe the glorification of power?

The Telegraph Book Review has a strong point, saying that the book appears to build towards a drastic confession, although does Changez confess he is a terrorist? This statement made me think as to how different people may perceive what Changez is doing back in Lahore. Is he a terrorist? Is he just a professor? Or is he a strong protester against the USA?

Although suggested throughout the book, and it being my initial response, I don’t think Changez is the “target for assassination”. This is the most obvious answer and the book consistently suggests looking deeper, so I think the first answer to the ending of the book can not be correct. This statement made me think what does happen at the end of the book? Is it possible it was meant to end with no definite ending because the repercussions of 9/11 are still happening today or is there another possibility.

This made me think about why Mohsin Hamid silenced the American, is it because he wanted the reader to come up with an uninfluenced interpretation. Is  the question left out to focus on the importance of the answers. Maybe the reader should not be thinking about how the question was framed, how they would of answered it, why it was asked, or how ‘its the wrong answer’, it should be on the answer. The focus should be on the information received and the picture you create with it, and what it adds to the story.

I agree with the statement that Changez works hard and receives the American dream he wanted, American girlfriend, Princeton graduate, modern apartment, well paying job at firm, yet he throws it away. I think he sees the power and corruption in America and doesn’t want to be associated with that. Maybe there was a disillusion from the beginning as what he perceived America as. Once he got there he might of seen that his culture, religion, beliefs, values etc. might not have aligned with the desired ’American dream’.