My Perspective on Shamsie's Perspectives
When I think about why Shamise gave each section of her novel a different character’s perspective it seems to me that it is because so much of the novel revolves around the idea of perspective. A character or belief can mean one thing from one perspective and something totally different from another. To keep the whole novel in one perspective would force the reader to see something that is really complex and nuanced through only one lens. The novel would feel two dimensional and it couldn’t fully explore ideas or characters. For example: if we only got Isma’s perspective we would never really understand Karamat Lone. To us he would be a bigot who disregarded Muslim people for personal gain and caused hatred to this entire group of people living in London. While that may be true, when we see Karamat Lone through Eamonn’s perspective, we see him as a loving father, and a man who tries to make the best for his family out of a difficult situation. Karamat is instead painted as someone who doesn’t want to just survive, he wants to thrive. Although this is a bit of a tangent, Karamat reminds me somewhat of Booker T. Washington who, in 1895, famously urged black people in America to not fight for social equality. His reasoning was that instead black people should focus on being a part of the economic growth in the south and learn useful trades, and that only by gaining money would they gain power and then finally there would be social change. That extra dimension of Karamat and so much more would be lost without the changes in perspective.
As for the order of the perspectives, I can’t say that I have many ideas. In class we talked about the changing of the seasons from perspective to perspective and that it invokes a cyclical nature to the story and I like that idea. However, I’m not really quite sure I see how it fits yet. Maybe something to do with the fact that all of these characters are meant to represent real types of people really in these situations. Therefore, when their story ends another begins that is very similar just with slight changes and new names. But maybe I’m reading too much into it.
I agree, Griffin! Perspective is utilized to illuminate different identities in this novel. We see that in the various attitudes the characters have regarding Islam and its congruency with Western culture. Where Aneeka is an outspoken Muslim, Eamonn is more cynical in his acceptance of assimilation. Your comparison of Karamat Lone to Booker T. Washington is spot on! Lone seems to be pessimistic about the West's capability to accept new cultures, so like Washington he urges his people to assimilate to find success and acceptance. Ultimately, the varying perspectives leave the reader with the decision as the story presents both sides.
ReplyDeleteHi Griffin! I totally agree that the different perspectives allow the readers to truly understand all the different characters and their ideas and thoughts on certain events/issues and even other characters. I like how you brought up Karamat Lone and how everyone in the book sees him differently. Isma is clearly against him and his ideals, whereas Eamonn stands behind him as British Muslims ridicule him. With everyone's perspective on Karamat Lone, we don't lose any valuable information and can create our own opinions. With the order of the perspectives, at the moment, it does seem a bit random, but hopefully we can see a clearer picture further in the book.
ReplyDeleteHey Griffin! It was really insightful to read about your thoughts on perspective in Home Fire. I appreciate how you went into depth with your example of the characterization of Karamat Lone and how each different perspective in the book brings another side of how to understand him. Thinking about the order, I remember our professor talking about seasons and cycles during class, but I am not entirely sure what it means yet either. When you find out, let me know!
ReplyDeleteI really like the comparison to Booker T. Washington. What are the drawbacks and advantages of that position? Who does it serve and who does it harm? Do you think the book takes a position by the end on this approach?
ReplyDelete