Feed on

Reading Comfort Levels

As discussed in class, The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a lot more engaging than Falling Man. Is this simply because The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a better narrative? Is it the style of writing? Is it the subject?

I personally think that the reason we consider The Reluctant Fundamentalist better is not necessarily because Hamid is a better writer, but because he writes in a way that we consider to be more comfortable. In Falling Man, we observed the life through the perspective of very weird people, and DeLillo reflected this in his stifled, sometimes very awkward sounding writing. The story itself was disjointed and had a very confused effect. In The Reluctant Fundamentalist, however, the writing is more composed. The book is an “actual” story, that is easier for us to follow. The point of view is still through the eyes of a very strange character (Changez) but it is more sedated and less choppy.

One Response to “Reading Comfort Levels”

  1. Kaitlin says:

    I agree, Hamid’s writing is a lot easier to follow. The story is, in essence, a conversation. He had to pay attention to making the story flow smoothly in order for us to believe that someone is saying this aloud, while DeLillo went the opposite direction and made sure that his story did not flow smoothly in order to mirror the disjointedness the characters experience in their lives. The challenge, then, arises when we ask which story is more accessible. On the surface, Hamid’s seems easier to understand, but as we’ve seen in class, it still contains meaning that is difficult to extract.