Response to Submission Part 3
Asma is the character that I admire, respect and identify with. But (even before I saw it in writing) I knew it couldn’t end well for her. Perhaps it was the pessimist in me, but I felt that there was no way everything would just work out and end well the way she desperately wanted it to. Her strong sense of justice, of wanting to carry out justice bravely like her father resonated with me, She reminded me of how I felt in the beginning of the book; like me, she too believed in America’s tolerance and protection of rights.
I couldn’t help but re-read the chapter in which she died. It was sad, not because of her death, but because of the way she died. It was sad because a country that claimed to be a land of opportunities rejected her. Her death was truly in vain; she was neither able to get the justice that Mo deserved as a Muslim architect nor was she able to get the justice her son deserved as a Muslim American.
As for the other characters, the only ones that remotely stood out in the finale were Mo and Claire. The ambition that I saw in Mo and so many of other characters truly angered me; perhaps, repulsed me would be the better phrase. I would feel less strongly if they had not trampled upon others in the name of ambition. As for Claire’s final decision demonstrated that she too has no real trust in Mo; she’d rather doubt him than give him the benefit of a doubt. As much as I had disliked her uncertainty, I do not think she made the right choice in the long run.
I’m glad I read this book because it’s shown me 9/11 from so many perspectives that I had never thought of before. Lastly, I’m glad that Mo got built his design elsewhere; however, a small part of me feels that it truly belongs in NYC.
Filed under Macaulay Arts In The City | Tags: amy waldman, lehman seminar 1, mhc arts, part 3, the submission | Comment (0)Response to Submission Part 2
Stories are to evoke emotion and there’s no question that this one does. It’s strange but I really can imagine the characters in this story as real life characters. Sometimes I feel happy for them, sometimes sad, and sometimes I feel like slapping some sense into them; just like how I sometimes feel around real people.
Mo is definitely not a conventional Muslim in that he seems to have too much pride in himself. He has no need to explain himself only because I think he truly didn’t think of religion when he drew the design. Not to mention it is also unfair and discriminatory to ask him to do something that no other winner would have to. However, I am reminded of a situation that we discussed in class that makes me think otherwise.
Sifaat mentioned that often when he wore his cap to go and pray at his mosque he was stopped and searched by police officers. I remember that Tim was of the opinion that the officers shouldn’t be allowed to search Sifaat because it’s discriminatory. Rebekah on the other hand said that the officers were doing their jobs for the safety of others. (Loosely quoting her) She said that “if they wanted to search me because they thought I might be a threat I think they should do so because it would clear up their doubts.” Though Mo doesn’t need to clarify his designs origins, it would clear up a lot of doubt and anxiety if he stopped trying to spite people.
Unfair as it may be, the area set aside for the memorial is essentially a burial place both for the victims and the hijackers. But the notion that the memorial is a martyr’s paradise only came about because the architect was Muslim. I feel that no matter what we do prejudice cannot be separate from facts. Taylor was absolutely correct when she said that the memorial is whatever the people allow it to be. The question now is how much longer these people will continue being sensitive to a harmless Muslim man.
Filed under Macaulay Arts In The City | Tags: amy waldman, lehman seminar 1, mhc arts, part 2, the submission | Comment (0)
Response to The Submission – part 1
To the question of whose rights are most important when concerned with the memorial, I would answer that it is the right of the victims, or in this case the families of the victims. But I also believe that the winner of the blind contest, Muslim or not, shouldn’t be ignored because that goes against the very ideal that the US stands for; prejudice blinds so much that it causes people to throw away their valued principles.
I’ve always liked reading fiction that is slightly, if not completely, based on historical context. So I was extremely pleased at how the author tied the situation in the book to the Maya Lin controversy. However, though there was a controversy involved around Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the memorial was built in the end because Lin compromised with the government and allowed a bronze statue of a group of soldiers within her memorial. However, unlike Lin, Mo refuses to make any compromise that concerns changing his design, even if it is to reduce the memorial’s “Islamic influences.”
When Mo’s character was introduced I couldn’t help but side with him. I think Mo sticking to his creation is what truly draws me to him. Though it is selfishness on his part, to force him to either compromise or lose his win is much more underhanded in my opinion. Unfortunately, in this prejudice-charged, fictional NYC it’s going to be hard for his design to win. I feel like this story is like representing the other side of what would have happened if Maya Lin hadn’t compromised with the government.
This whole fight is going to be life-changing time for all the characters because they’re about to be a part of something truly historical. I’d like to believe that the memorial would be built exactly as its artist envisioned it. I want a happy ending where Mo gets to build his memorial true to its form because I’d like to believe that even fictional NYC is capable of overcoming its prejudices.
Filed under Macaulay Arts In The City | Tags: amy waldman, lehman seminar 1, mhc arts, part 1, the submission | Comment (0)