In the final third of the novel, events escalate. What happens now both to the characters and to the country? How do you respond to what happens at the hearing, especially to Mo and to Asma? How do Mo and Asma each fall victim to American and to Muslim politics?
What do you think of the conversation between Claire and Mo? Can you separate art from the artist?
What do you make of Mo’s trip to Afghanistan? Why do you think Amy Waldman includes it near the end of the novel? What do you think of the visit to Mo by the young filmmakers? In the end, how does Mo come to understand faith?
To a large extent, this book is about betrayal. Think about or make a list of all the different ways characters were betrayed. What do you think Amy Waldman is trying to say? Why do you think she called her novel The Submission? On how many levels does the title resonate?
Did you enjoy the book? Why or why not?
The only word that comes close to expressing how I felt after finishing the Submission is kef, a state of drowsiness or dreamy intoxication. (I’m sure there’s another term for the feeling you get after finishing a book, but I suppose that will have to do.) I wasn’t sure how I felt. It was a touching ending to have Claire watch the part of the documentary where she can finally envision the garden she always wanted with the cairns that her son, who also rooted for the garden set up for both himself and for her. Though the garden was never erected in New York, there it was. Existing somewhere else, flourishing. That section broke my heart.
There were many memorable moments through out this section. When Mo drinks Orange Juice, an American routine to finish his Ramadan fast, he thinks, “This is who I am. I can stop pretending otherwise.” When he repeats, “I am an American, too” while backing Alyssa, I was so proud and happy for him. I felt so many mixed emotions, watching him complete his transformation.
Asma’s speech. It gave me such chills to read that section. Later on, when one person says, “To have her up there in a headscarf, after these barbaric headscarf pullings – it was like some brilliant piece of performance art,” I was baffled. It reminded me of how 9/11 was referred to as a “work of art.” Was that ‘art’? Her death was even more shocking; I was both horrified and angry by the public’s reaction- how dare they point the blame on Mo!
When Claire is thinking back at Cal’s words, “You look at the creation, not the creator,” it resonated on how deeply her opinions were rooted into her perception of the creator. For all of us. I was mournful when I read the line, “Eden, paradise- all the best gardens are imaginary,” thinking that Mo’s garden was never built, but the end tied everything up perfectly.
And of course, the line that summed up the entire novel: “He had forgotten himself, and this was the truest submission.” The title resonates through each character: Mo, Claire, Sean, even Claire’s grown up son, William. Each and every one of them has struggled to fight for their beliefs, even though there was a root of uncertainty that clung with them during their struggles. From this struggle, they discovered their flaws. Even Claire admits that she hates the new memorial, and Sean disappears on his own, finally embracing (or maybe not) his independence without the shadow of his dead brother. Mo is finally comfortable with his own self, as a Muslim. Each of them have faced their submission to God, to others, and to themselves.
I definitely saw Asma’s speech as a work of art because the courage that she mustered to speak up for herself and her husband was admirable. Admist the conflict over the memorial, her attitude in the hearing is just as intense as if she was delivering lines on stage in front of an audience. When it came to Asma’s death, I was just as shocked and angry as you said because I expected that she is saved from being deported at the last minute like those “happy ending at the airport scene” but her unexpected death threw me off. She should have been a member of the jury with her ability to deliver the truth without that inch of fear. However her death as well just comments on the influence of the media and the conflict over identity because it showed that people feared her strength and her sudden fame as a representative of their community. Moreover I do believe everyone at the end submits to something so the title has a tragic canontation especially when the book is about the American dream so rising is more respected. Submission in this context becomes the final stage of their ascension because each character witnesses a complete change in mindset such as Mo’s acceptance of his Muslim identity and Claire’s realization that cultural identity blinded the real intent of the memorial.
It was interesting to find Claire and Mo having the conversation on whether one can separate art from the artist. I had a similar conversation with my friend two years ago: can one be criticized for one’s opinion? This works even better if the person has a very disturbing opinion regardless of his or her superb personality. Let us pick me for a better understanding of this idea. I’m a model citizen who pays taxes, picks up my puppy’s poo poo on the street, and does absolutely no harm to others. What is more, I am so fun to be around with. A reminder. All this is just an example case for a better understanding. Yet, I think Tibetans should succumb to Chinese invasion because Tibet alone has no significant economical power in the world that Tibet would ultimately benefit from China’s influence on the world. Imagine a Tibetan refugee overhearing my opinion. Is it justified for him or her to smack me in my head just because I have a different opinion? Back to Claire and Mo. It is a similar situation. Can the creator be separated from the creator’s creation? I think the creation or opinion itself can be agreed or disagreed upon, and it does represent the person to a certain extent. Yet, one must not forget that that creation or opinion alone does not characterize the person. You cannot judge somebody for what or how he or she thinks. Likewise, you cannot judge one’s idea for what or how he or she is. I do admit it requires greater maturity and understanding to execute this ideology in certain cases. Especially in cases like the afore-explained example where it involves a highly sensitive issue. Nevertheless, Claire was in a position where she was specifically appointed to pick a design in an unbiased manner. Wasn’t that the whole point of having a jury from “various backgrounds” (although, there wasn’t much of a “variety”) in the first place? O, poor Claire. What has she turned into.
Did I enjoy the book? Hmm. It was an easy read, so that was good. It also brought up a number of interesting issues, so that was also good. Apart from that, I don’t think this novel has much literary value. There was nothing intriguing in her style of writing. There was nothing outstanding about the structure or layout of her storyline, either. Okay, this was only her first novel, so maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh on her. I do, however, have a feeling that she would write non-fictions much better. Yes, may be the fact that she was high up in the New York Times hierarchy gave me that “feeling.” It was also because her style of writing which was very blend, untainted just like how a journalistic writing should be. In short, I wouldn’t have bought this book if it weren’t for this course, but don’t be too heart-broken Amy Waldman. Maybe your next work (which has to be a non-fiction, in my opinion) will be more worthy of my money.
‘Can art be separated from the artist’ is also something I thought was interesting in the book. Of course we live in world where everyone has their own biases, racism’s and opinions so I’ve found (through my short 18 years of experience) that the answer is no. Then the question, for me, becomes ‘Should art be separated from the artist and judged/ viewed on its own?’ again I’m tempted to say no because we miss so much insight about the artwork when we don’t take its creator into account. In this situation I don’t think it would have been ideal to just chose the garden and ignore Mo’s identity (as an architect/artist, Muslim, American), it would have been ideal to recognize the artist and his intent and still appreciate the art itself. I feel like Mo didn’t try to explain himself and as a result people weren’t given the chance to judge the art, and the artist accurately.
In the end, most of the characters become more badly-off but at the same time less naïve about the situation. The third part has a greater focus on Asma’s death as well as the final intense discussion between Claire and Mo.
What happened to Asma was tragic because she stayed in America and came to America in the first place to pursue the American dream, wanting a better future for her son that the father and herself could not provide. Waldman is able to grab a character from a subtle situation where she acted as a mournful widow to a symbolic speaker for a whole religious community in America. It is ironic because she just wanted to live under the radar in America but her attitude towards the injustices told her otherwise. Her death unfortunately became one of the final reasons for Claire to ask Khan to withdraw from the competition. Unfortunately, the need of blood to be let loose was the only way for the conflict to move towards closure. Asma’s son specifically suffers the most as an orphan because he can only recall his parents through secondary perspectives. The political fame of his parents is now history for him and what they did locks him away from America, which is the most unfortunate part.
When I suddenly was aware that the book has jumped into the future, I was the most surprised at the changes in Mo’s life. His reason to withdraw from the competition is hard to swallow because as the readers we have been following this conflict over his name and design’s association with Muslim faith so it was disheartening to hear that he could not go through because of America’s prejudices. At the same time, Mo becomes less naïve and realizes that prejudices will always prevail in some situation but acknowledges that the core of the memorial was remembrance. This concept is most seen through the building of the garden in foreign land because Mo eventually agrees to build it despite its previous fate which comments on how cultural acceptance still has a long way to go. Mo could have scrapped off the plan of the garden but did not at the end that still strikes the question of why. The reason why this part was included at the end is just to show that the sense of submission to the whole issue because all the interviewed people show remorse and regret to have did what they did. Most would have either took back their action or changed it but the whole look back into the past concept at the end of the novel emphasizes the everlasting influence of the Garden from its appearance in jury discussions to a replica of it.
The tragic conclusion of Claire was definitely her position to blend art with emotion because she was left dangling in the middle while both sides jabbed at her to say yes or no. Mo’s actions definitely had a great influence on the outcome of Claire’s life because he did not provide any answers to any of her questions. However, her questions were definitely not hers but the “public’s” or in other words questions pushed out into the air through media. Journalism in the whole novel is an art form nonetheless that perform to its best abilities with the wrong purpose. If we go through the novel, Spiers from the Post kept the plot going and brought up conflicts and turned the plot in the opposite direction too. She too wanted the share of the American dream, being able to rise up through the ranks of her job. Her attempts to give her publicity had tragic side effects that usually meant people would be victims of her words. In essence, media influenced opinions were the Mastermind and one way or the other each character sank because Claire and Mo thought it was just a memorial.
The book was enjoyable except for the into the future part because I personally thought there was going to be a full blown lawsuit but for that to happen there would have to have a couple of hundred more pages. Waldman commented a lot on the difference between acceptance and submission because the misconception that Americans in the novel has was that accepting the memorial meant submitting to its so-called religious ties. Realizing the underlying meaning of the novel, I too wonder if Waldman is commenting on our society and how we would approach this very same conflict. The parallelism between the society in the novel and in reality is shocking because I too felt the Islamophobia years after 9/11 so how different would it be?
I understand how you expected a “full blown lawsuit” by the end of the novel. I kinda felt like I was reading John Grisham novel in the first two sections, but the law and other judicial aspects kind of subsided towards the end. I guess the author wanted to bring more focus on the issues lying underneath more than the process of how the characters deal with the conflicts.
You mentioning Claire in her future reminds me how Claire’s future relationship with her son resembles Paul’s present relationship with his sons. Paul also has hopelessly idealistic sons who he cannot seem to please or be pleased with. Paul’s younger son also films documentaries like Claire’s son! Claire seemed like a model mother, but it’s sad they have become distant over time.
Wow, I did not realize that each of their son filmed documentaries until you pointed it out. I agree that it is sad that their relationship became distant because I thought Claire was a role model but her failure to finalize the memorial showed her weakness probably to her family.
In a sense, the events that happen in the last section of the novel result from Mo’s unwillingness to speak for himself and express his ideas coherently. Claire suggested that Mo tell the media and the American public that he is not an Islamic radical and does not want his memorial garden to represent the paradise the terrorists thought they would obtain through their terrible acts. Instead, Mo stays relatively quiet during the hearing and does not, without being asked, denounce the terrorists’ actions. He rationalized that by saying a six year old could tell you it was wrong. Asma publicly defended Mo and suffered the worst consequence when she was killed by a faceless assailant as she prepared to be exiled from the country because of her uncovered immigration status. Mo was not directly responsible for the death, as Paul pointed out, but the climate her death created made the effort of finalizing the plans for the memorial seem not worth it, even though the motives of the assassination were unclear.
In some cases, you can separate the art from the artist. However, I think it would have been better not to separate Mo from his memorial. Mo could, if he had been more vocal, have represented a repairing force, a link between the United States and the Islamic world because he essentially represents both. Mo failed to capitalize on that opportunity because he did not causally link his art to its role in society. He acted merely as a architect and not as a politician, which he should have been prepared to do because he probably understood that his name could cause controversy. Also, Mo did not fully explain his ideas for the garden. His obfuscation on this particular point probably put the nail in the coffin for the design.
Mo’s trip to Afghanistan served to further tie him to his deepening Muslim faith. Waldman chose to put it at the end of the novel to symbolize an inner piece that religion can afford, especially after you have endured what Mo has. The trip also cemented the duality of character that Mo represented throughout the novel.
The Submission is a brilliant title in numerous ways. First, a first time reader probably could not accurately identify the subject of the novel because of the vague title. Second, the submission could refer to the submission Mo made to the contest that he eventually won. Third, but probably not the last possible interpretation of the title, emphasizes the religious act of submission that the name “Islam” means and represents. As the novel progresses, the reader gets a sense that Mo’s faith is deepening, from his celebration of Ramadan to his visit to Afghanistan at the end of the novel.
Overall, the novel was an interesting, fun, and quick read that closely related to what America went through (is still going through) in the aftermath of 9/11. Even though the premise of the story is slightly absurd (why didn’t the committee consider the garden as possibly representing the terrorists paradise when they were making the initial decision) it accurately displays the double-crossing and betrayal present in the media and politics. It also forms a unique character, Mo, whose duality and silence eventually ruins the realization of his design. Waldman is a fine writer, repetitive and overly straightforward at times, who crafts the story very well. I enjoyed the book and think that it fit in perfectly with the themes we are currently discussing in the Seminar class.
I really agree with your conclusive paragraph. Also, your concept of Mo not separating himself from the art to act as a repairing force was very insightful. Still, I hold my belief that art should be totally disconnected from the artist in order to appreciate the art as much as possible, but in Mo’s extraordinary case, I agree that he should have been ready to give even a brief explanation of his intentions. It would have avoided the controversy and maybe even the violence.
I believe that you can separate art from the artist, but not the artist from the art. By looking at art, you can derive, say, certain religious leanings, political beliefs, or personal struggles that the artist may have. Therefore, the artist himself is forever ingrained into what he creates. However, I think you can not only separate art from the artist, but you SHOULD separate art from the artist. For example, James Pollock was a lazy alcoholic that is famous for making abstract, splatter paintings. Knowing that he had a troubled past, I more clearly understand why he made the kind of rebellious, odd art he did. After conceiving them, the paintings have nothing to do with him, though, as they are subject to any passerby’s interpretation. His life and intentions are irrelevant. The art stands alone. I believe that this is one of the most beautiful qualities of art! Say I thought that alcoholism was a condition that only godless barbarians developed. If I found out that Pollock struggled with it before seeing his art, I wouldn’t be perceiving his work the way art should be perceived. The way it should be perceived is from an unbiased, open-minded perspective. Even if the painting I was looking happened to be conceived during one of his drinking binges, it is still legitimate! Still beautiful! The artist isn’t even in the equation! All that matters is the canvas and the few layers of paint before me.
I thought that Mo becoming a Muslim was cheap. What!? Really?! I guess I knew it was coming, though. The book is called The Submission after all.
I really enjoyed the book. I can tell that she is predominately a NY Times writer because her description of events is so matter-of-fact. Though this style got dry and boring at times, I thought it worked for this story.
Tim Migliore
I agree with most of your thoughts, especially the part where “I think you can not only separate art from the artist, but you SHOULD separate art from the artist.” Its true, whatever a person creates, that there thing, however the thing that was created should not define that person (it just shines an aspect on one of the many sides of that person). I disagree that the style was dry and boring. I thought it fit perfectly well with the topic: I was so happy that this was not a Dickens styled book. I really enjoyed how the novel had mini stories of different people (different perspectives if you may) and how those mini stories interconnected with each other, all webbing back to Mo and his garden design. I also found the book quite good, the powerful imagery, diction, and structure and progression of the novel just captured my attention.
I disagree. I believe that art, a lot of times, is an extension of the artist and extracting one from the other ruins our perception of both. In 1947 Jackson Pollock said “On the floor I am more at ease, I feel nearer, more a part of the painting, since this way I can walk around in it, work from the four sides and be literally `in’ the painting.” Its obvious that he wants us to see him in his artwork, and perhaps even let the art be a representation of him. I believe that hen you only look at the art you loose a lot. Fine, you can feel the emotion portrayed in the painting, you can praise the superior technique in the photographs, but it becomes harder to analyze and understand the true meaning of the artwork.
Tim Migliore
Betrayal really surges in part III of the book. Claire, the one true defender of Mo was a big shock. Once a staunch supporter of Mo, she became the opposite, advocating for Mo to withdraw for the competition. I think the country at that point as a whole became more divided. This was especially prevalent when support came to Asma. Her speech was really moving, one can tell that she spoke that from the heart: angry at the injustice in America, a country that was supposed to be the land of opportunity… A country that was supposed to judge people on their character and their hard work and not on their religion. What Asma did was really brave. I think that she did the right thing because she put a human face on what most Americans demonized as a terrorist religion. I wish Mo, especially at the hearing, could have addressed some of the concerns of the people, however ridiculous those concerns were. Had he addressed some of the concerns, Claire might have still been on his side, and it would have been he and not Asma who would have brought support for the memorial.
Asma fell victim to the politics because she would be stabbed by an unknown person (probably some Bangladeshi muslim who was angry that the police would start checking illegal or legal statuses). Mo just fell victim to ignorance and fear by the American people. Its because of the fear of the unknown, and Mo’s stubbornness (however justified it is) is the reason of all the pressure to have the garden cancelled.
Like I claimed before, I wish Mo was more specific, and should have addressed the apprehensions of some of the people, especially Claire’s. Even though Mo was right in the sense that he has nothing to defend, because he was chosen fair and square and the situation would not have been applied to him had he not been muslim; however the Islamophobia was strong amongst Americans. He should have explained his position, clarified it, to put some minds at ease like Claire’s.
The author puts Mo’s trip into Afghanistan to show how Mo has moved on from America, how life has changed. I thought it was important because it showed the illustrations mentioned by Americans of Islamic gardens abroad. This was that illustration, of Mo walking down the Islamic garden and its terraces in Afghanistan. I really thought the scene where the filmmakers visited Mo was a powerful one. People tend to change or at least the opinion shifts a little bit. Not feeling the raw emotions that once plagued us, we can see things through a fresh pair of eyes. Showing the interviews of Claire, and everyone else and their recollection and their remorse of the events that happened was so powerful. It showed that people have moved on, and Claire’s remorse of not supporting Mo at the end, at least sorry for not apologizing to him. In the end the new memorial that replaced Mo’s garden was a total flop (according to Claire), money and effort was wasted and nobody seemed to like it and more fights were instilled.
I took the title of the novel literally. It is simply the submission of Mo’s plan to build a garden as a memorial. But also the submission maybe the symbol of Mo finally submitting to American opinion and deciding to withdraw from the competition. I think it was the right choice for Mo to withdraw because all the controversy just created division instead of unification, which memorials are supposed to do. However once Claire did see Mo’s garden in action (in full blossom) in another nation I think she felt utter guilt. She abandoned her heart, her belief that Mo had every right to build that garden memorial and in the end chose to oppose him. Now she feels wrong which goes back to the time theme: as time goes on views and positions on certain things start to go through a metamorphism. All in all, this was an excellent and powerful book and I hope that future generations read this to understand the racism and fear that Americans felt and demonstrated during this troublesome time period.
I disagree with your opinion that Mo should have quit, because he has caused as much disagreement as possible within the community. His application itself offends conservative families because they believe that he is being insensitive to their pain since he is of Muslim heritage, and they hate his idea of a garden as a “martyr’s paradise.” He also has annoyed conservative Muslims because he blasphemed against the Quran and is not pious enough. He was in the worst position possible because MACC, representing Muslims, and Claire, representing families, united in opposition. He should have just pursued legal means to build the memorial so that he could see his proud position as a winner by merit in a competition for the memorial.
In my opinion, this novel represents every human’s life, and how we all change as life goes on and eventually submit ourselves to something greater than us. This wasn’t any spectacularly written novel, but the story behind it is what made me get into it. All of the characters in the book, especially Mo, Claire, Sean, etc, start off with such a strong opinion on the matters regarding the memorial. Claire went through the most apparent change of them all. She started off backing up Mo and standing up for his rights as an American citizen. In the early chapters of the novels, Claire said, “it is about the memorial, not who creates it.” Then, all of a sudden, she falls into the trap set by all of the pressure and the media. She tries to persuade Mo to withdraw from the competition.
I am happy for Mo in the end, because he finally accepts himself for who he is. This is a lesson we can all learn from. You can never truly be happy in life until you accept yourself.
“He had forgotten himself, and this was the truest submission.”
As I said before, this novel is symbolic to how people change during their lifetime and eventually submit (die). It is depressing to see life in that retrospect, but it is bound to happen to ever person.
The story itself was interesting because it had to do with everything we have been talking about in class (9/11 and islamophobia). At the same time though, I did not enjoy the plot too much. Even though islamophobia is apparent in America today, I thought the who conflict was a stupid one. So what Mo was Islamic? He was an honest American. This issue blew up quick with the American people, even though it wasn’t such a big deal to me. It just goes to show, ignorance often leads to social and political conflicts.
I agree with you; I’m happy for Mo. Some people mentioned that they felt he became too devout in such a short amount of time, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Quite a bit of time has passed by the time William made the documentary, so I think it made sense that he felt a deeper connection to Islam. If he hadn’t changed, the novel’s message wouldn’t have been half as powerful.
It wasn’t only a deeper connection to Islam, but a deeper connection to his architecture. I guess that the way Mo lives his life, doing what he loves and having such a great impact with his architecture, makes his submission worthwhile. Since Mo is so satisfied with his religion and architecture it makes his life less “depressing.”
There is just so much to absorb and reflect on in this final section. I have a feeling my response is going to be way to long. Oh well, here goes.
First of all, I too found it interesting that Mo ended up breaking his Ramadan fast with, “orange juice first thing, an American routine” (212). Later that day, he cuts his hair and his beard. It seems that at first, Mo becomes more Muslim, growing his beard and fasting, but quickly he realizes that he is more American than Muslim and cannot try and pretend otherwise. He seems to belong nowhere- Americans dislike him because they think he is a Muslim radical but he feels he cannot be a part of the religion and therefore isn’t accepted by them either.
What happened with Asma was so sad. After her speech, some people automatically treated her as the hero everyone needed, as if she uplifted them out of their fearful, confused, un-American funk- Oprah wanted her on her show, and reporters were all over her. However, people were also sending horrible hate mail, and once Alyssa Spier (I really hate Alyssa Spier) wrote the article about her illegal status and her compensation after her husband’s death, the Muslim community felt betrayed. They thought she shouldn’t have spoken up because it left them vulnerable to being deported as well, and she had hidden her fortune. Her death, although abrupt, sadly did not surprise me that much. People can do rash things when fearful and angry, and that is what happened in this situation.
I thought Mo and Claire’s conversation brought up many good points. By not withdrawing from the competition and then not choosing to explain himself, Mo is allowing people to feel threatened by him. As Claire says, “your design becomes more threatening if you won’t change it: it tells me there’s something there, something hidden, you want to preserve it.” I know that Mo wants to stand up for his rights as an American, and I support that. But at this point, he needs to accept that people are scared and confused and they cannot trust someone they don’t understand. They need him to stop being so stubborn and start being understanding of their fear.
Can you separate the art from the artist? A challenging question. I don’t necessarily think you can. Artists reflect their personality and their character in their artwork- it is their connection to the world and one can learn so much about an artist from their body of work. In Mo’s case, they should not have separated his memorial from him- from the true him, not the media driven image of him as an Islamic terrorist conspirator who is trying to disrespect American families. The problem is that they do and that is when his memorial becomes the martyr’s paradise. If he had advocated more for his memorial and people had associated his memorial with the American architect that he is, things may have turned out differently.
After Claire stopped supporting his design, Mo said that in trying to get the memorial to be built he had to, “use his country’s own laws against it, judo his way to victory, force his vision onto a people who seemed more foreign to him by the day.” This is why I think Mo went to Afghanistan. He felt that his fellow Americans didn’t support him, didn’t want him there.
Years later, when the filmmakers come to interview him, Mo still seems to be fumbling with the idea of faith, saying that, “he had stumbled in sacrilege all those years ago and found he belonged there…if he was every to find his way to belief, it would not be through fasting, or even through prayer, but through his craft.” Claire clearly never left behind the concept of the garden, and the memorial that was built in place of it did not bring her closure for her husband’s death. I guess that was the consequence for letting fear, mistrust, and intolerance control us. It was very nice, however, to see her finally feel at peace when her son made the cairn in the garden.
While it was an easy read, I still enjoyed this book. It was so realistic. The novel forces us to recognize our prejudice toward Muslims and our unwarranted fear of all American Muslims just like there was an unwarranted fear of all Japanese Americans during WWII. It seems that we tend to mistreat people we do not trust. We require only the smallest justification to treat people badly in situations such as the one in the novel, and we blame everyone but ourselves for the outcome. This is the kind of book that could make readers squirm. We, as Americans, tend to think of ourselves as liberal; everyone is equal, freedom for all. So it’d be nice to say that we would never react this way in the situation with Mo and the memorial. But after finishing the book, I doubt anyone could say that this would not happen in real life. We are not as open-minded and trusting and accepting as we make ourselves out to be, particularly when we perceive danger.
Hey Taylor,
You’re response is long but I take that as a challenge, and to that I say, challenge accepted.
I like the notion you made about Mo seemingly belonging nowhere. He is a very ambiguous character, and I think he tries to remain so on purpose. He doesn’t want to upset Muslims so he tries to be like them, and at the same time he doesn’t want to betray America so he tries to retain some of his American-ness as well. And he was accepted by the religion up until he blatantly blasphemed during the hearing. The he was getting death threats.
I find Asma’s death tragic as well, and I hate the character that is Alyssa Spier too. It surprises me that Asma’s death didn’t surprise you though, because I did not see it coming at all. In fact, I thought Waldman was being completely random by killing her off. You’re right a about person doing rash things in the heat of their emotions, though; that’s definitely the reason Asma was killed.
In my response, I wrote that I thought Claire was the one being stubborn in her conversation with Mo. I know Americans were scared and worried, and that is only human. But Mo was trying to force American to get over its prejudice by holding out on information about the Garden, and unfortunately Americans were not convinced.
You are so right when you say that Mo shouldn’t be separated from his artwork. The Garden was as much of an ambiguous, ironic character as Mo, and it said a lot about him. According to Waldman’s pessimistic view, Americans are too stubborn to overlook his Muslim background so I completely agree with you in that it is inevitable to separate Mo from his art.
I also felt that Mo sought solace in Afghanistan because of feeling like an outcast in America.
While reading the third and final part of ‘The Submission’ by Waldman, I was really captivated by what happened at the hearing by what both Mo and Asma had to say. I felt as though Asma took the words out of my mouth when she told the audience that they should be ashamed of themselves. This was the moment in which I really found myself in deep sympathy for her and her loss. Mo’s speech was good as well, though he did “blasphemize,” as Waldman puts it. Other than that, he addressed the “martyr’s paradise” notion tastefully, talking about Islamic influence in the Garden as well as many other influences. Though this didn’t run over too well with the audience (mostly because Waldman makes them out to be stubborn idiots), I still think Mo was in the right when he decided not to come out and say that the Garden was not truly Islamic. In the end, however, both Mo and Asma sadly fall victim to American and Muslim politics: Asma being stabbed on her way to the airport and Mo basically moving to another country.
During the beginning of the conversation between Claire and Mo, I told myself to pick a side, and I instantly sided with Mo. Claire was being too inconsistent, and I lost my faith in her when she began harboring doubts about the Garden. Mo, on the other hand, held to his beliefs throughout the entire book, and he was admiringly still holding onto them throughout his conversation with Claire. He never told her outright the Garden wasn’t Islamic, and some may say he was being too stubborn. I, however, think that it was Claire who was the stubborn one because she persisted in asking him about without any shame, which annoyed me a bit. Mo was definitely acting as a piece of the art itself, almost like a contraction; He is Muslim but also American, and his Garden is Islamic but also Christian and Jewish and Buddhist and so on.
Mo’s trip to Afghanistan and his spontaneous piety was definitely a reaction to the discriminatory environment he was exposed to. It was an attempt to rebel against everyone who thought less of him because he was Muslim, so, in turn, he decided to become devout and still be himself. By doing this, Waldman made Mo the perfect example of one who is a devout American peaceful Muslim so as to disprove the stereotypes that Americans had against Muslims.
I would definitely agree that The Submission was entirely about betrayal. Alyssa, who could be considered the antagonist of the story, betrayed Asma and Claire, and Mo, in a way, betrayed all of America. However, I also think that irony was the biggest motif of the story, testing American for how true it really holds to it’s constitution and supposed rights and equality. I think Waldman was trying to portray America as wounded from 9/11, and using that as an excuse to waver in the face of justice when presented with the irony that is Mo.
The title ‘The Submission’ carries many connotations. It is literally referring to Mo’s submission of the Garden, and yet also reminiscent of Mo’s religious submission. Ironically, the term ‘Islam’ translates directly to the total submission to God.
I can’t rightfully say I enjoyed the book. I found myself being let down most of the time, like expecting Claire to fight for the Garden and Mo to not withdraw. Being immensely disappointed with the outcome and confused by the ending, I must say that book was a little anti-climactic, and that’s what made it bad to me.
The book is definitely full of betrayal. Everywhere. From the start to the finish. Betrayal. In Claire’s “change of mind”. Betrayal. In Alyssa’s edited truth. Betrayal. However the ideals of America were betrayed the most. This Western countries are supposed to be surrounded by the ideals of individualism. However, with a controlling society, which disallows this essential need for individual rights, America is turning into a country full of repression. Initially this was the country in which people could finally be themselves. People came to America to escape religious persecution, pursue their business dreams, and get educated in any topic. However, the greatest betrayal is that society has limited the country to a few beliefs. We are supposed to hold great amounts of individualism and in the end we merely conform.
I never thought about it in that way; that the main betrayal in the book was the American society. As an American you are supposed to feel this sense of freedom and you are supposed to feel comfortable enough to express yourself. But as we all know, even freedom is not free. America was built on these ideas of how everyone should be free, but we still have some work to do as a society in order to reach this goal.
The third part of The Submission ended this story in a way that none of the efforts seemed meaningless. Asma’s speech is the most powerful part of the trial because she calls out the protestors on their shamefulness and shows how muslims are also victims of the same tragedy and deserve to be part of the memorial as much as any others. The way in which Asma is killed on her way to the airport and Mo withdraws from the competition shortly afterwards seems to close the case on a powerful note. Asma’s reprimand towards Americans and her sacrifice seem like the last word on the Garden’s trial, like she had achieved more than those who got their wish of stopping the Garden’s construction.
Although Mo feels dissatisfied with his choices, so many people know his Garden as the best choice like Claire and the jurors. He also built a career to carry out his agenda of spreading Islamic style architecture on an international scale. Mo spreads his values and is extremely successful because of his decisions. In addition, the documentary is like the apology he always wanted. No efforts in the story went to waste. Most people got their happy endings.
The part that disappoints me most is Alyssa Spier’s fate. Nasruddin should have left her to the mercy of the bloodthirsty mob after Asma’s murder. Spier admits that even though her reports were selfish and endangered so many people, especially Asthma, but she should be thanked for bringing Mo’s victory to light and catylzing these oppurtunities. It irks me to see that Spier escapes this whole escapade completely unscathed and unchanged from her selfish methods.
In the final part, there is a public trial where Mo was asked to defend his design and other characters, including artists, historians, family members, Paul and even Asma stated their response. Paul was the moderator, and Asma defended Muslims, while the families were bigoted or believed that Mo should have been more sensitive. Because of this, Asma became a national icon for a few days, but her popularity revealed her undocumented status, which eventually led to her death when she had to leave. During the trial, Mo talks about design and implies that Quran is not the word of God, and later to Claire, acts insensitively revealing some of his anger towards those blaming him, and he finally leaves the US to settle in the Middle East, where he is a famous designer. Claire leaves Mo’s side completely after she faces Mo’s arrogance to simple questions, and asks that he quit along with the MACC, who were offended when he unknowingly blasphemed. The novel has a climax where the conservatives in the country become the most violent leading to Asma’s death, but the problems simmer off until everything returns to normal with Issam Malik even in the Congress.
I think that Mo’s explanation was the most genuine explanation he has given. In spite of his nervousness, he clearly explained architecture to the public. He was, however, extremely nervous and makes mistakes that hurt his chances at reconciliation with the public. Asma becomes brave and supports Mo and Muslims when there was no one defending, and I think that she does a very good job of removing most of the political jargon to show the human face in the alleged “enemy,” showing that radicals are few in Muslim communities.
Mo becomes victim to American and Muslim politics in the end, where conservative families opposed him because of his perceived Islamic design, while Muslims opposed him for his blasphemy. He was made a fundamentalist Muslim by conservatives, while Muslim community conceived him as a worldly, blasphemer. Using this, both the communities united against Mo, and eventually got over differences in the end. However, Mo was the scapegoat for blaming problems from both communities.
Due to the fear-mongering, Claire feared Mo’s meaning for the artwork. This was a genuine concern, because she deserves to know what he specifically meant for the garden. However, Mo was very clever and revealed his outward personality during the conversation, which annoyed Claire. I think that Mo deserved to win by merit but he should have clarified. Claire was too scared and did not focus on the fact that most Islamists were against Mo because of his blasphemy.
I believe that art is also an expression of the artists personality, so the artists interpretation deserves the most merit. Hence, art should not be separated from the artist. For example, Skillet, which is a Christian band, wrote “Awake and Alive,” that almost sounded hedonistic, unless one hears the lyrics and realizes that it is talking about preserving religious faith in this world.
I think Mo’s trip to Afghanistan was a humbling one, where he is able to see that a lot of people in the world do not have even the basic necessities. I think this was put to reacquaint him with other problems that might be bigger than his own. He also gets partially reacquainted with his faith during that time, and gets to reinvent himself afterwards as he settles in the Middle East. Viewing the problems from outside the country, I think that Mo realizes that all the talk from people like Debbie Dawson and Isaam Malik was just a way for them to become more powerful. Debbie gets international readership, while Malik gets to be in the government. In a way, he gets to observe that everything in the country goes back to normal very quickly and people just use events to propel themselves to fame.
The visit to Mo by the filmmakers was touching because they wanted to show that people still remembered his past, instead of his famous present. Claire wanted to apologize and Paul’s widow explained his difficult position. The filmmakers bring Mo back to his life in New York, and bring a more soothing side to the problems he faced.
In the end, I think Mo was slightly religious, but not too much considering he still prayed very infrequently. He reveres faith in his designs but he seems to still have doubts in his religion.
Claire and MACC betrayed Mo by opposing him. Paul also betrayed Mo because he upset the fairness of the jury, by involving the public. Asma was betrayed by Alyssa, because Alyssa wanted information.
I think Waldman is trying to convey the pervasiveness of betrayal in the community. She shows that people betray for a number of reasons, but most importantly, they do so for a good feeling personally. Issam Malik, Claire, and Alyssa betrayed others because they felt more secure emotionally doing so. Hence, I think that betrayal is used as a means towards bettering emotion. The novel is called The Submission because Mo’s submissions started and ended the conflict in the story. His initial submission of the entry started the action, while his submission to public opinion made him withdraw and ended the conflict. I think, therefore, it operates on these two levels. I think the book was a good read because it was not tough material. I think that this exaggerated the prejudice in the society as many of the families of victims’ are from Manhattan, which is the most liberal city in the country. Mo also changes too fast from becoming an arrogant architect to submitting to the public. I do not think an architect who was hounded that way would give up when legal means could be used for instituting the architectural splendor. Overall, I enjoyed the book because of the drama involved in the story.
[SPOILER ALERT FOR BRAVE NEW WORLD BY ALDOUS HUXLEY…]
After completing the novel, I was shocked by the ending. The drastic changes of emotion and religious belief made me think it was unrealistic. However, after rethinking and looking over the key parts of the novel, I find that the book resembles reality a little too much for my liking. It presents the flaws of our country and of society as a whole. The Submission was similar to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In the novel, Huxley presents a “utopian society” with certain societal rules, which “helps” the society run with efficiency and stability. With the introduction of an “uncivilized man”, the society tries to make the man conform to the beliefs of the group. However, in the case of this society, being an individual is impossible. The individual must assimilate into the majority. Bringing it back to The Submission, Mo’s character is similar to the Savage in Brave New World. Each character must face the battle of society and in the end both of them fail. In Brave New World the Savage kills himself because he knows he cannot fight in a battle he will not win. Similarly in The Submission, Mo gives up and moves back home because he knows the fight will not be won. Unfortunately, in the end, society breaks down the individual to force them to actually give in.
However, according to Amy Waldman, the “truest submission” is when one “forget[s] himself”. In the end of the novel Mo became religious in which from an American point of view may be seen as a true submission. However, from other perspectives the ability to find your individualism again after such assimilation in the American society presents Mo as the complete opposite. Unfortunately, with the two of the individuals in these two pieces of literature, Mo and the Savage, could not live within the repressive society and fight against it. By staying an individual to the death (literally in terms of Brave New World), they in fact are not completing the truest submission. And in Mo’s case, he has moved on.
In terms of the garden being built despite its demise in the New York memorial is interesting. When Mo was explaining (or trying to explain) what the memorial meant he states, “life goes on, the spirit rejuvenates – this is what the garden represents”. By ending the novel with the final creation of the garden is a testament to how life does go on and how the spirit rejuvenates after a tragedy. Although the purpose of the memorial is no longer for the grief of 9/11 victims, the memorial is now for the regrowth of Mo’s individualism. The tragedy had transformed from the death of 3000 to the death of the individualistic society. Life did go on for Mo; the spirit did rejuvenate after the trauma he had to go through. This story is not about battling in a world of winner-less fights, it is about the loss of human individualism and the controlling society that is the cause.
I like Alison’s argument that the book presents the “flaws of our country and of society.” If I tie her idea to what I wrote it seems that one of society’s flaws is a lack of tolerance about the unknown. It doesn’t matter if the people in a society claim to be tolerant in Mo’s case or “promote” individualism in the Savage’s case; in the end, its true nature is always revealed.
I hated the fact that Mo wasn’t able to build his design where it was supposed to be built. However, contrary to what Alison states, I don’t think that Mo withdrew because he knew he couldn’t win. I feel like it’s because he knows that winning still means that he lost in a way.
Mo finally gave in to the public’s opinion, to the reality. The American society, which he is involved, did not accept him because he was a Muslim. He seemed to fight against this reality by entering the competition for a memorial and denying to be discriminated by his religion, but finally, at the end, he submitted to the public’s firm perseverance. While I feel sorry at his decision, however, I have a doubt on his memorial. What if he did not give in under their compulsion and constructed the garden as he designed? Would it be the “real” memorial with peace and reconcile? The garden that Mo build for a private climate looked so peaceful and beautiful, but the garden with the same design, built in Manhattan under a huge objection, does not sound that peaceful. I agree with Mo’s decision to give up the competition because it ceased the conflict although I did not want it to happen.
Claire, who had a firm opinion advocating Mo’s design despite of his religion, also submitted to the reality. When she found that her son was mistreated because of her opinion, when she were blamed for her advocacy toward Mo, and when a journalist from the post exposed that Mo had been in Afghanistan, her belief and justice were tested. And she finally chose to force him to withdraw. It was a betrayal to Mo and his advocators, but she rather chose to submit to the reality. It was interesting that at the end people did not seem so happy. Some of them were dead or sick, and some were not known. Does the author want to say they regret their decision to object Mo? Claire did obviously. Submission to the reality brought her regret. I think she made a best chance at that time.
When I finished reading this book, I felt somewhat bitter a little bit. This is not the conclusion that I wanted while reading this book, although I guessed this way. I wanted the world and people in this novel to reveal what the real world never accomplish such as overcoming stereotypes in society and choosing what is “right” in spite of risk but the novel wanted to show us the real world. Also, I did not like this situation where I could not say who was right and wrong because everybody was a victim and suffered.
I really liked the way you explained how no ones efforts were meaningless, and how the fact that Asma’s speech and her death was more meaningful than anything the protestors said. No one (except the protestors maybe) said that Asma got what she deserved- everyone is guilty for allowing something like this to happen to an innocent woman. I like how you said that Mo’s struggle what not for nothing. In the end, he did so much good and was very successful. I think Alyssa represents everything that is wrong and corrupt with the media and journalism, but I am proud of Nasruddin for not stooping to her level of cruelty by helping her when she was in danger.
my comment was in response to romi
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.
During the first section, and some parts of the second, I felt like the idea of a Muslim creating a 9/11 memorial was more to talk about, and more interesting, than the actual plot of the book. However the third section makes me reconsider my original judgment. Overall the characters have matured so much because of their experience. Mo, particularly, has gone through an entire life-changing process. In the beginning of the book he feels so conflicted and confused about his identity. For example he’s Muslim- but not devout, he’s American- but the public doesn’t perceive him as such, he hasn’t done anything wrong- but still feels a little guilty. After being attacked, becoming devout and learning how prejudice plays out in society while he watches, he forms his identity. At the end he seems like his identity is the same as before, a non-devout Muslim American but so much has changed, now he knows who he is and has his own identity.
Claire also changes a lot, at first she was willing to stand up for the garden but once she’s pressured she gives up, not because she hates Muslims (like the protestors) but because she’s not so sure she made the right decision. A huge part of me feels like if Mo had stood up, and justified himself there wouldn’t be so much confusion and Claire would have stood by him. But at the same time, is it right to ask him to justify himself? Has he done anything wrong? No, he hasn’t but he is a Muslim and a lot of people have misconceptions and maybe if he had explained himself some people would have just left the situation a lone. Its kind of similar to Obama having to show his birth certificate. He knew the people accusing him of not being an American were ignorant, and the whole thing was petty. Mo chose not to submit. I’m not saying everyone would have been fine with the memorial but everything would be out in the open.
Now concerning the question of whether art can be separated from the artist, I believe the answer is no. We live in a world where we judge everything. If someone performs a song on a stage I’ll applaud them, but if my friend sings the same song with less technicality, goes more off beat, and sings a little sharp I’ll whistle, stand up and say to the guy next to me “Oh my goodness, that’s my friend!!!” Okay I’m exaggerating, but you get the point; the world is full of biases that change our perception, for the better or worse. Should we try to separate the two? I already commented about this twice, once on Hansol’s response and once on Jordan’s and the gist of what I said is that in many cases our understanding and appreciation of the artwork is often enhanced by knowing the story behind it and by knowing the artist. When we separate the two, we loose meaning of the art itself and since art is part of the artist we loose our sense of the artist too.
Back to the characters, I can’t say I was completely shocked that Asma died but that didn’t make it any less tragic. Out of everyone in the book I admire her the most. She had a very idealistic view and its sad that people just didn’t even value her. Altogether I thought the book was okay, I liked it and I appreciate the discussions about art and our politics that it brought about so I think it was a great choice for our class.
People may say reality caught up in the third part- Mo gave in, the garden was not built in NYC, Asma was killed, and Claire moved on from her support to the submission. But is the tragedy the only reality in this book? In the end, Waldman showed the stories of the characters alongside the matter of 9/11. Mo, at first a stranger to his religion, deepened his understanding about Islam. Claire, who was so passionate with her opinion, compromised herself to society. Asma, who was driven towards her goal, was murdered during her strive for justice. How many people had a change of heart at one point of their lives? The story of Malcolm X was quite recent. How many people relinquished their strongly held standing? Nowadays, it’s common for people to say, “because things are like the way they are, I don’t have any other choice but to conform to status quo.” How many have been assassinated in their pursuit of their belief? We don’t need to look far for the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. This book is suitable to reality in more than one way.
To me, Waldman’s novel was about these characters in a common time and a shared tragedy. Their stories were similar to real people who passed and still passing, showing different forms of submission- submission to one’s identity, to one’s society, and to one’s death.. She showed that the importance came more from the outcome of these characters over the events that occurred. Despite our personal opinion and preferences, each outcome had a meaning.
This book did something that felt wrong. It wasn’t that I wasn’t that engrossed in the story to begin with, but it was just… wrong. It was that it contradicts its own message towards the end. I don’t mind that Mo doesn’t get to build his memorial, I don’t mind that Asma died, I don’t mind that William helps make a documentary on the entire thing. No. No. No. No. No. None of that. It is two simple things; first, Claire basically betrays Mo at the last minute with what felt like little indication and foreshadowing and second, Mo regrets what he did. I want to go in order. Claire was essentially a third party to the Islamic community who did support the memorial. She felt like the person who was supposed to show that it was possible to actually possible not to forgive, but disregard the fact that she doesn’t have to forgive Mo or any of the Islamic/Middle-Eastern characters because they did nothing wrong and had a tiny connection to people who did. I vaguely remember around the middle where she was questioning about this. That could have been the extent of this. What it shows is that no matter what, a family member of a victim can’t be unprejudiced. Which message sounds like a better one to take at heart? Second, why would Mo regret his submission. Is it the violence it caused? Asma’s death? It is never elaborated on. The fact of the matter is that Mo shouldn’t regret anything because he did nothing wrong. He didn’t cause violence and hate crimes; xenophobics caused it. The message comes across as we should accomodate the intolerant. This is absurd. Did the civil rights movement back down because the KKK wasn’t taking kindly to its presence? No, because that makes no sense, it will only lead to MORE oppression. It is one line, one line that makes the rest of the book into a large and unfortunate implication. It makes me angry, because the book is otherwise a fairly decent analysis (in my opinion) of the xenophobia present after 9/11 and its exploitation in the media. Also the rest of the ending I like.