In The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid, the author draws the reader's attention to the feeling of distrust and suspicion that many Americans feel, particularly towards Middle Easterners and Muslims in general after 9/11. In doing so, Hamid forces the reader to confront this truth and either identify with it or feel guilty when realizing that it is a reaction based primarily on the prejudices in the media's depiction of a terrorist. The American idea of ​​a terrorist in post-9/11 culture has essentially boiled down to a Disney villain portrayal of Middle Easterners and Muslims, with the perceived enemy being a dark-skinned, long-suffering replica of Jafar. beard and wearing a turban. from Disney's Aladdin. Through a carefully constructed narrative that uses one-sided dialogue between Changez's characters and "the American", Hamid throws this prejudice in the reader's face, but also cleverly leaves room for various interpretations of Changez's true nature: is- it harmless? , or is he exactly what many Americans fear he is?Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The narrator, Changez, constantly reassures the American to whom he is telling his story that he is not in danger. The first sentences of the novel raise awareness that the typical Middle Eastern Muslim appearance frightens and angers many Americans. Changez said: “Ah, I see I have alarmed you. Don’t be scared by my beard: I am a lover of America” (1). After establishing the commonality of this notion of prejudice against bearded Muslims in American culture, the author sets out to arouse the reader's own xenophobic tendencies by describing Changez as an individual all too eager to convince the American character of his innocence. An example of this is evident when Changez talks about the tea brought by the waiter. He said, “Don’t look so suspicious. I assure you, sir, that nothing untoward will happen to you, not even a runny stomach. After all, it's not like he was poisoned. Come on, if it makes you more comfortable, let me exchange my cup with yours. Just so” (11). The fact that the author does not give any dialogue to the American character contributes to Changez's dubious character because we can only know what the American is thinking or saying through Changez's narrative reaction. Hamid deliberately uses this literary device in order to keep the reader feeling guilty about his prejudices, but also to maintain a certain degree of truth in the suspicions of ill will. After all, Changez acts strangely by approaching the American unsolicited and delving into a long, intimate discussion about his past. Who does this? This is suspicious, and is exactly what Hamid is looking to capitalize on. There is truth to the argument that Americans – and people in general – often attribute malice to an openly friendly and generous foreigner, without any known pretext. This could be seen as unwarranted paranoia, but the fact that this is the method many criminals use to gain the trust of their victims also means it is naive not to be skeptical. This is a dichotomous situation that evokes notions of Shakespeare's Hamlet and begs the question: is it paranoia if the suspicions are validated? This is the case of Hamlet, who is ultimately murdered as he feared. Hamid chooses not to conclude and leaves the scene to interpretation. Hamid seems to enjoy playing with the feelings of thereader towards Changez. Changez's relationship with Erica can be seen as a parallel to his desire to be accepted and embraced by a nation rife with xenophobia. Erica's inability to move on from her past reflects Americans' inability to accept the changes (read: Change) that threaten to erase nostalgia for pre-9/11 America. Erica wants to love Changez, but she can't; just as America can't seem to shake off the overwhelming prejudice against Muslims in the Middle East, even though it wants to consider itself a country tolerant of all races, creeds and languages. By developing this tragic love story, Hamid aims to create sympathy towards Changez. Why can't Erica and America accept him for who he is? Why does Changez's boss make fun of him for growing a beard? It's just a beard. At the same time, Hamid also insinuates that Changez is growing increasingly resentful of American intolerance. Changez says: Sometimes I found myself walking the streets, flaunting my beard as a provocation, craving conflict with someone reckless enough to antagonize me. Clashes were everywhere; The rhetoric emerging from your country at this moment in history – not only from the government, but also from supposedly critical media and journalists – provided ready and constant fuel for my anger. (167) By calling it “your country,” Changez evaded any identification with America. He goes on to say that “such America had to be stopped not only for the sake of the rest of humanity, but also for yours” (168). Changez's anger and commitment to "stopping" America's current anti-Muslim sentiment begs the question: What has he done? This question is never directly answered in the novel. Changez acknowledges this question by saying, “What did I do to stop America, you ask? You really have no idea, sir? …I'll tell you what I did, even if it wasn't much and I'm afraid it won't meet your expectations” (168-9). Although he promised to answer this question, Changez never does. He mentions becoming a "lecturer" at a university and "persuading [students] of the merits of participating in protests for independence in Pakistan's domestic and international affairs"; however, this hardly addresses the “affronts” that so irritated Changez (179). The open-ended nature of this question suggests that the answer lies in the reader's own interpretation of the novel's ending. Does Changez put an end to American arrogance and intolerance by showing an American his good nature and friendship by sharing lunch, divulging intimate details about himself, walking him home, and finishing the meeting with a handshake? Or is there something more sinister about him cornering the American on a dark, deserted street while the waiter "quickly approaches" and "signals [Change] to stop [the American]” (184). ) ? Will Changez stop American intolerance the same way the kids of the Trenchcoat Mafia stopped bullying at Columbine? Does he subscribe to Martin Luther King's philosophy of nonviolence to combat racial intolerance, or Malcolm X's philosophy that "all means are necessary"? Changez claims to be “no ally of the killers,” and yet he also admits to “intervening” in a “fight” that ends with “bruised knuckles” (181; 179). It would therefore not be accurate to say that Changez is completely non-violent and morally incapable of doing.