Responding to Amy Waldman’s The Submission Part 2 pp. 124-204

In this section, the lines are drawn more sharply; the arguments become strident; there is more at stake for each of the protagonists and the positions they represent. Discuss how the plot deepens for one or two of the characters that interest you. What are you learning about the politics of identity? Is there anyone you side with? Is there anyone you admire or are rooting for?

What do you think of Mo’s decision not to explain himself? What is his rationale for the design of a garden? How do you respond to the notion that the memorial will become “a martyr’s paradise?”

Are there any lines that stand out for you? If so, quote a few and say why.

20 Responses to Responding to Amy Waldman’s The Submission Part 2 pp. 124-204

  1. timosha21 says:

    Tim Migliore

    In the Submission (part II) of the assignment, the plot takes a darker turn as we find out people’s reaction to the juries verdict. Groups like SAFI are gaining numbers, momentum, more ferocious towards the notion that a person with a muslim name was picked to design the memorial. Hostile family members, conservative publications, opportunistic politicians like Governor Bitman, talk about, in my opinion: ridiculous, notion of “stealth jihad.”
    It must have been hard for Mo the most. I noticed that he got the shock of his life, “Mo’s stomach contracted,” when he read what the New Yorker wrote about him, it was not predictable like what other opponents rhetoric. It made Mo feel that the way it was written was like “being called shifty by a roomful of people he had thought were his friends.” Mo would get so tired of this that he once started to put a psychological distance between himself and the Mohammad Khan who was written and talked about. Simply the crap (the untrue) that was wrote about really shocked me, as he said himself a lot of stuff was not true. The best example was one source claimed that Mo’s brother had started a radical Muslim students’ association at his university. Mo had no brother to begin with! He was a single child! The ignorance of America and how desperate the media was to cover him up, that they would resort to fiction, made me outraged. Everyone is trying to paint Mo as a villain (almost everyone) just to score points with others or because they have associated him with terrorism.
    I found that the notion that the garden was supposedly a martyr’s paradise simply absurd. Honestly the hostility towards this American loving person is simply overblown- just ludicrous! I side with Mo who at times feels like he is fighting (or lack of fight) the whole entire nation of America. The Muslim Council seems to be not as effective as promised. I don’t think that Mo should defend any of his positions because its ridiculous, the jury had selected his design fair and square and that’s final. Like its repeated in the book several times, had it been another architect with just another name then there would have been no problem. Mo does not need to explain himself, he simply designed a garden, the fact that it had some Islamic influences did not bother the jury before shows how unreligious tolerance this country has come. The fact that some paint the design as a paradise for martyrs is just unbelievable. People will always come up with bullsh*t when they are afraid of something, Mo himself is very secular: the only Muslim thing really about him was his name and his occasional observance of the fasting.
    Lines that stood out for me: “Clinging to America, to the possibilities it dangled, was her own small war of liberation, if a lonelier one” ~thought by Asma. (147). Even after all the viciousness towards muslims (ordinary people coming up to Muslim woman and pulling down their head coverings: a clear attack on their freedom of religion) she still believes in America. She still sees this as the land of opportunity even if this opportunity has diminished (if a lonelier one).
    “naïve impulse to privilege tolerance over all other values, including national security” ~ said by house minority leader. (p167). This is like the book cover of a nightmare novel, all the bad perceptions, the ridiculous rhetoric used against Muslims. I thought this quote really destroyed the notion of the constitution. The fact that this politician has given up the 1st amendment in the name of security, makes me look at what is happening today. The patriot act used to justify the government to listen into phone conversations without a warrant in the name of security: How many rights are we willing to give up in the name of security? A false sense of security? Benjamin Franklin once said that a nation that gives up some rights for security deserves neither.

  2. hansol says:

    Claire definitely goes through biggest changes in this section. Initially, she was the strongest advocate of Mo. She convinced other judges to vote for Mo’s design and supported Mo after the result was leaked. She believed that he was the rightful winner of the competition up until this point. Nevertheless, after being attacked mentally and emotionally by anti-Muslim 9/11 victims and the media, she doubts her needs or reasons to support Mo any longer.

    It was really surprising to see Claire break down because she seemed like that one character that has sound morality and strong emotions, a heroine. I understand her concerns for the safety of her children from the aggressive opponents because she is a mother. She would obviously want to protect her children. However, what bothers me is most is that it was Alyssa, the tabloid journalist, that shook her faith so easily. What? Really? After all that time she spent on Ivy League education to be a lawyer, for god’s sake, and in a upper-middle class society, she cannot handle one tabloid journalist? Shame on you Claire. I thought you were one person I could trust.

    I don’t admire any character in particular. They all go through major struggles and bear huge issues in their lives, but they just don’t seem human. I am not saying they are not human because they are mere fictional characters. In fact, these characters are so real that there could be people living out there who are living lives just like one of them. What makes me not want to admire them is that their lives seem so fabricated, so intensely self-centered that I don’t want to feel anything for them. None of these characters is true to oneself. They are all living lives of somebody else’s: Mo, well in his thirties, I assume, is still going through an identity quest; Claire is still lingering on the emotions she had not only for Cal but also for her ex-boyfriend she had before Cal; Sean is living a life using his dead brother’s name in vain; and, Alyssa is just so desperate to do anything to get her status higher. Is defining one’s identity really that hard? Do we ever find one? Or, do we even need to?

  3. Jordan Fogle says:

    I have to disagree with Tim. I understand why he believes Mo should stick to his guns and keep his mouth shut, but I don’t think it is that simple. Mo can’t just ignore the controversy that his prize is causing. By doing that, he is fueling the media circus and the intolerance surrounding the competition. Yes, if it was anyone else, it wouldn’t have been disputed, but the fact is is that it is being disputed and he needs to hush it by at least showing America who he is. If he were to do this, he may help the situation (not make it worse like he is now) and even shed light on how foolish Islamophobia is altogether.

    I agree with Honsol in that I think all the characters are miserable idiots. Particularly Mo, in my opinion. I wish he would grow up and come to terms with reality. Just say something for christ sakes (or Muhammed sakes, I guess)! He is a little kid that thinks it is bad-ass to remain a mysterious figure. Yes, it is unethical for this country to frown upon customs and heritages that it doesn’t understand, but it is just as unethical for Mo to knowingly perpetuate violence just because being silent aligns with his personal moral standpoint. That is selfish. That is bullshit.

    To go along with Honsol’s point, maybe if he really knew himself, he would come out and speak. Maybe that is the reason he is remaining an asshole. I am praying that in the next section all the characters “find themselves,” whatever that means, and convert to Islam, living happily ever after on a river boat in Italy.

  4. Taylor Biegel says:

    In this section of the novel, I felt sympathy towards Mo and the Muslim community in general that was being targeted as a result of the memorial. However, I was also surprised at how little Mo fought for himself and his idea, and honestly-sadly-this made me feel less compassion for him. As the issue becomes more and more corrupt around him, Mo just shuts down. He seems to stop caring, saying that, “[he] began to put a psychological distance between himself and the Mohammad Kahn being written and talked about” (126). I just wish he would stand up for himself because he has a chance to make a huge difference for the Muslims by getting Americans to trust him and understand him. Instead he builds a wall which allows the public to make up hurtful lies about him and his intentions.
    The response from the media is incredible. The way they twist the issue and create more heat and cause more conflict is almost pathetic. What is the point? How can people be so selfish? Hurting others and using them just to get ahead in their careers. It makes me so angry because people look to the media to get an idea of how to think, so when reporters portray a negative image of the memorial and Mo and Islam, people will believe it and give into that. It’s just like middle school rumor spreading all over again.
    The Rally to Protect Sacred Ground was a demonstration of what people resort to when they are afraid and are looking for a scapegoat. The headscarf pulling caused an even greater divide in our nation, with some people supporting the headscarf pullers, and the youth in Muslim communities forming gangs of protectors to wander the streets (a recipe for disaster is you ask me).
    I think Claire is in a tough place- trying to stand by her opinion but being criticized by all the other family members- and honestly, I was expecting her to break down at some point like she did. I am unsure of what to think about Asma. I feel sympathy for her unfortunate position but I still wonder how her character will develop through the book.
    I really think Mo should have explained himself better and made himself more accessible to the public. By shutting down and being a mystery, he was allowing others to make up their own minds about him. The whole idea that this garden is a “martyrs paradise” is just a statement made out of fear and lack of knowledge. But by just saying, “it came from my imagination,” Mo is allowing people to believe this nonsense about the paradise. I think the memorial can be whatever people allow it to be. If they treat it as a place to honor the lives lost, then it will be the perfect memorial.
    Anyways, I too hope that things work out for Mo and Asma and Claire. But I don’t think they will. At least not yet. I know it sounds negative but I think things are only going to get worse before they get better.

  5. jlawlor says:

    The second section of the book provided new insights into the political underpinnings surrounding the selection for Mo’s design. Claire introduces the idea that New York is essentially separate from the rest of the United States in terms of political ideologies. In fact, since the vast majority of New York City residents are liberal (NYC is one of the most liberal cities in the US) they would be more lenient towards the idea of having a Muslim American citizen as the chief designer of the 9/11 memorial. However, the attacks of September eleventh targeted the United States, not only New York. That is why there is such controversy surrounding the designer; the United States is primarily conservative.
    Section two also introduces Debbie and the men who pull Muslims women’s scarves from their faces. Debbie and the men build on the anti-Islamic sentiment that was introduced earlier in the novel. The aggression towards Mo began in the erroneous news articles and was built upon by reactionary groups. The “scarf pullers,” for lack of a better term, viewed what they were doing as a liberation from the bonds Islamic laws that plagued these American women. Waldman highlights this logical incoherency as proof of certain groups’ ignorance toward foreign culture and religion. The escalating tensions between the Muslim Americans and anti-Islamic groups seems to be reaching a pivotal point and most likely will erupt in the last section of the novel.
    Finally, before I can end this post properly, I have to address how Mo is coping with the increasingly hostile environment. This section includes a part where Mo is celebrating Ramadan and has to fast. I think that the troubles he is facing are both making him a more devote Muslim and patriotic American. From what I understand, Ramadan brings you closer to spiritual peace by enduring the pains of continual fasting. It makes you more appreciative of what you have and less concerned with trivial day-to-day problems. In reference to a concept I recently learned in psychology, the endurance of pain and sacrifice creates a justification of effort in the participant. That means that the more pain a person has to endure for a cause, the more likely they are to be loyal or supportive of that cause. Mo is most likely experiences a justification of effort to both Islam and the United States because he is directly or indirectly experiencing suffering as a result of both.

  6. romiz says:

    I agree with Hansol and Jordan on how each of these characters is struggling to find their true selves throughout this second part. The mere display of Mo fasting for Ramadan and unconsciously describing the guests in the banquet as “his moderate Muslims” reveals more of identification with his Muslim community. Claire also states that only in her confused state on whether to trust Mo and choose the garden does she finally experience ” a coming into herself.”
    While reading through The Submission it became increasingly difficult to discern the time difference between the setting in the novel and present day. Then I started to think of the timelines we saw in class this week and how uncertain America was of its situation, like whom the enemy was and what actions to take, years after the attack. The notion of America seeking its own identity mirrors each individual character’s search for their persona.
    It was also interesting to read about the dispute during the banquet at Gracie Mansion. Tariq asks Mo “ You’re leading us to a bad place. It’s you, not the terrorists, who’ve hijacked our religion. At least the terrorists believe. What’s your excuse?” He hits the nail on the head about how unsuitable Mo is to represent the Muslim community since he only just recently acknowledged an onus to cooperate with other Muslims and supporters.
    Tariq complains to Mo because he is tired of fighting Islamaphobia and the strain it is puts on the Muslim community. But this comment also brings to mind Tim’s point of “How many rights are we willing to give up in the name of security?” It is a slippery slope, when these people sacrifice their right to tolerance to maintain their position in this country, there is no reason for all their other rights not to start tumbling down too. All of these protests and controversy seem like too much over a garden but everyone is fighting to revive and retain the American identity since “America has to be pushed- it has to be reminded of what it is.”

  7. Harry Chen says:

    In the second section of this novel, the plot intensifies because of the actions on both sides of the conflict. I agree with Joseph that there is the anti-Islamic group led by Sean and Debbie that sound like a group of people led by ignorance and fear of a foreign culture. Debbie in specific acts like a politician in that she is saying words that will trigger the urge for people to fight but I doubt those opponents really know what they want from protesting against the memorial. The head-scarf pulling breakout is just another way to show how Sean who represents the opposition should not be apart of the movement because he runs on emotional ties to his family and brother rather than on logic. His action is both disrespectful and childish but on the other hand, where I agree with Hansol, Sean can never be Patrick in the eyes of his parents and has been under a lot of pressure to keep up with the expectations of his revengeful mother.
    The MACC on the other hand has taken on a greater role in representing the lives of the Muslims and painting a better picture of them. The ad campaign that they were to run about Muslims not being terrorists but average Americans will not be effective because the public opinion is so largely influenced by media that any use of money to defend the Muslim image becomes useless. Mo especially separates himself from the Muslim community and does the radio show to show that he is a secular human being except for his name as Tim mentioned. The radio show allows him to represent himself as an individual with the same American rights as all other citizens and not some promotional figure who is shaped by the MACC. Therefore I do agree with Jordan that Mo should define himself to America and not let media tell him and make him doubt who he is as an American. Mo needs to stand up for himself and I believe that is somewhat seen in the second part at the cost of Laila. To address the interesting perspective presented by the Muslims at the Mansion, I agree with Romi about the slippery slope in terms of sacrificing rights because I believe the violence that stemmed from the Islamaphobia should not be tolerated but they cannot blame it on Mo for wanting to chase his dream of becoming a well-accomplished architect. The rejection of Mo from the Muslim community just shows how hard it can be for a targeted group to defend their own member.
    The media as well becomes more conniving in this section and I agree with Taylor with the fact that journalists have become the worst enemy of most of the main characters due to their ability to twist stories and fabricate lies in order to shoot someone down. Alyssa for instance, in an attempt to stand out, had not only revealed a Muslim as a winner in the first part, but now has taken after Claire at the time when she needs more time to herself to deal with the families discontent as well as Jack in her life.
    I am still as interested as before about the ending where I believe an anime-like duel will break out and those who can lower their moral standards quickly will survive not saying that any character is heartless or has no conscience.

  8. After reading Part II of Amy Waldman’s ‘The Submission,’ I am finding myself being drawn into the story more than I was after reading Part I. The arguments have deepened, and I’ve also noted some character development. One I particularly enjoy reading about is Sean.

    That’s not to say I like Sean’s personality, because I don’t. I disliked him from the very start; he seemed to be leeching off of his brother’s death in order to get some meaning into his mundane, blue-collar life. I realized this especially when his mother told him “you talk more about him now that he’s gone than you talked to him when he was alive,”(pg. 183). The rallies against Mo’s design are just time fillers for him, and, getting his perspective on things, he doesn’t seem to very educated in what Islam truly entails. I enjoyed the wonderful irony of his embarrassment at having his bag searched in front of the MACC, it was like a type of payback for pulling down Zahira’s headscarf.

    The only character I’ve really sided with so far has been Mo. I understand that he feels he shouldn’t need to explain his design, and I somewhat support him for that, but I do think he should take the people around him into consideration. He needs to be a little more selfless for the sake of protecting the people he representing, Americans and Muslims and Muslim Americans alike.

    Mo’s design is having more of an affect than he seems to realize. People are perverting his garden into a “martyr’s paradise” things are just getting out of hand. When I first read about the “martyr’s paradise” comparison, I laughed out loud. It’s interesting to see the things that Waldman is coming up with, and I can’t help but wonder where she is drawing her inspiration.

  9. I agree with Hansol. After reading the section section of the Submission, I didn’t find myself drawn to the major characters that I assume Waldman hoped would capture our hearts. The only character I liked was Zahira; she was the only one I actually respected. There was a section when Sean (probably my least favorite character in the novel) is forced to apologize for pulling her headscarf and she in turn, opens his eyes to his ignorance. Her rebuttals are so logical that he finds himself speechless. As I read, I grew more and more frustrated at the American public for their ignorance, but that moment was satisfying. Sean was finally seeing faults in his argument, even though he ended up saying that he still didn’t want Mo’s garden to be built.

    It was an interesting turning point when Mo started fasting. Though he felt like he was somewhat of a traitor of his religion, I can sense that he is starting to believe a little bit more, starting with his questioning of the “God he doesn’t believe in,” but that’s a start. He has a lot of unwanted responsibility on his shoulders. Waldman worded it best in the sentence; “His position was an immovable object that moved everything around him.” This particular section reminded me of what Sifaat shared with us in class the other day; how at first he wasn’t an avid follower and felt slightly disconnected with his religion, but eventually started strengthening his faith over time. Perhaps Mo is doing the same. I think he deserves some credit for that.

    I’m not a big fan of Claire, but I thought the section about attending gatherings for the victim’s families intriguing. I agreed: it seems pretentious to pretend that these people have anything other than loss in common; it really is “morbid to have only that to share.” These particular lines struck me: “They believe they couldn’t go on. They went on.” Whenever something tragic occurs, we automatically react by assuming that we couldn’t possibly move on from that moment onwards. Yet we do. The awful irony of this struck me to the heart, and I found that to be powerful in this section.

    “Sometimes I feel like I’ve got one leg in New York and one in America.” This line strangely clung to me. I feel that it is true; as a New Yorker, I feel that we are slightly separated from the others. We are New Yorkers. I agree with Joe; the controversy has to do with the fact that overall, America is conservative and New York is known for being liberal. But New York is still America, and “emotions are not legal rights.”

  10. stevem says:

    Asma’s story seems to increase in tension as she witnesses sexism in the society. She sees increasing tolerance towards attacks against women from both the Bangladeshi culture and the conservative American one. In her neighborhood, she finds out how Kabir regularly quarrels and beats Hasina, his wife, and he puts her under his complete control. Moreover, when Asma tries to help Hasina out, her neighbors’ seem to have a greater problem with her help instead of reporting abuse. Even the kind Nasrudeen is relatively ambivalent because of his inaction in this situation. While the younger members do a good job defending the women from outside threats of headscarf pulling from abusive conservative men like Sean, Asma reports that “she no longer knew who was imprisoning her,” because the youth were surrounding her continuously monitoring her movements ( Waldman 171). From this, its clear that while Asma identifies fully with her Bangladeshi culture, she longs for the freedom guaranteed by America. Her quote on the walls shows how she does not want to be in the prison by the cultural fight, and wants to find work. I probably side with Asma through the story, because she longs for a freedom that could have been with her if she were not imprisoned due to Islamophobia (people like Sean are violating Asma’s right to religious freedom as others mentioned) and sexism. I admire that she is able to have courage to try to save Hasina, unlike the rest of the neighbors who seem to be in support of the cruelty.

    I believe that Mo’s decision to not explain the rationale for the garden was a little silly. He should have explained it because it sets up more of a public profile. He will not be a random person with a common Indian Muslim name. As a result, opposing families might be able to see a little more rationally. At least the younger members will be more involved with rational explanations about his behavior. He wants to make a garden because it was simply beautiful and had names of dead in black letters as a commemoration of the victims who passed away on that day. The notion that it will be a martyrs’ paradise is silly because it is a garden for the victims. It is the victims’ names on the wall of the garden, and not that of terrorists. Moreover, Mo had no intention of commemorating terrorists, because they killed so many people.

  11. hayoung says:

    In the second part of this book “The Submission”, the conflict became more severe and it caused a lot of problem in people’s real lives. In the middle of all conflicts between normal people and Muslims, Sean is always there, and in this chapter, this guy attracted my attention.
    Sean in this chapter became more extreme. His hatred toward Muslim world was expressed more aggressively than before. He was so eager to gather people to make a movement to object Mohammad and Muslims, and he was not even afraid to be arrested for his bad behavior. His aggressiveness finally caused a serious conflict in the society when he pulled a headscarf of a Muslim woman. He was severely blamed for humiliating Muslim women and causing a “plague” in the society, and he had to apologize in the public for his behavior. But he doesn’t give up objecting Mohammad, his memorial garden, and the Muslim world.
    Sean is a very hot-tempered and stubborn person, and he seems to be always blamed for his temper. He always causes a problem in his society and he does not give in anything. But I found hidden behind his strong characteristics is loneliness and sorrow. These characteristics were not depicted in the book, but the more he became aggressive, the more I felt pity for him. He had to be aggressive and stubborn to object the Muslim designer because he thought a memorial garden designed by a Muslim designer would humiliate his brother’s death. His sorrow for his brother’s death made him aggressive and stubborn. I am not justifying his aggressive behavior. I don’t agree with his objection against the Muslim world and I definitely think he was wrong when he pulled a Muslim woman’s headscarf. But I do understand why he behaved so and feel sympathy for his passion for hating Muslims. It is terrorism that made him extreme and that has to be blamed instead of him.
    I don’t want to blame him like any other people in the book. I don’t want to agree with him and his hatred, either. I just want to hug him if he really existed.

  12. stevem says:

    [This is an extra comment. I just forgot to mention it in class] I think Sean is a failure who wants to amount to something, instead of being a “handyman.” He finds out that he is decent at manipulating public opinion so he strikes me as someone like George Wallace, the infamous poster child of southern resistance to desegregation in spite of his initial liberal roots (Sean is not even half as cunning as Wallace though). I think that a lot of Sean’s actions are meant to increase his popularity to substitute for his relative sham of a job.

  13. Rebekah Misir says:

    From the very beginning of the book, the one character I felt drawn to was Claire. I liked that she knew what she wanted (the garden) and she seemed very passionate about her beliefs. However after reading the second part I realized that she isn’t really like that. After being pressure she lost her strength, of course its hard to be criticized by the people you represent (sounds like a politician’s job) but I expected more from her.
    One thing I think Waldman does a good job of is showing us how confusing and life-altering this imaginary dilemma is. For example if you look at Mo, his ideas about faith and patriotism have intensified. I don’t think any other architect would have had to explain themselves but that’s just it; Mo isn’t “any other architect”, he’s a Muslim architect. I’m not saying he owes anyone an explanation for his design but given the circumstances it would make the situation a lot easier. Then again the media is extremely aggressive and capable to exaggerate, twist, and spin words.
    The one character I can’t stand at all is Alyssa who, for me, represents the entire media in the book. Everyone is so annoying, I thought good journalism was supposed to be objective but I guess not. “The problem with Islam is Islam.” Seriously?
    Waldman also knows how to make the reader resent Sean, so kudos to her.

  14. Alison Wong says:

    The second part of the novel begins to focus on the politics of the situation. It is no longer enclosed within the jury; it has gone completely public. Unfortunately with this new publicity, each character faces the pressure from the public and the media. This section deals with each character’s fickleness. Claire, who was Mo’s main supporter, switched sides. From all the pressure from the public and the media, she submitted. She advocated for him with the juries, she argued with the public for him, and she believed in the fairness of the contest. Claire was my voice of reason in the novel and she simply gave in to the beliefs of the ignorant.
    Sean, one of Mo’s main challengers, is the voice of ignorance. Similar to Claire, Sean lost a family member during the 9/11 attack. However, unlike Claire, he did not believe in the fairness of the contest and that Mo’s rights should be sacrificed under the belief that he is a Muslim. Consistently throughout the second part, Sean tries to show his reverence to the people of ignorance. I think he is just some guy looking for power in a situation of great distress. But in the end he is merely a puppet to other people’s beliefs because he submitted into the crowd’s overwhelming opinion. In the end, he will not be remembered for his words of ignorance; he will not be remembered at all.

    Reading though the second part of the novel, the title “The Submission” begins to sink in. Submission is defined as “the act of giving over or yielding to the power or authority of another.” It is the loss of human individualism to the group. Claire, who had once supported Mo, submitted to the beliefs of the media and the public. The book holds a main theme of submission into this belief of anti-Muslim ignorance. It is about people who lack the curiosity to research and learn before making judgments and opinions. This submission into this overwhelming group of discriminating, ignorant, lazy people is the unfortunate reality. This world is full of information; however, there is so much we do not comprehend. With this group of unknowns, humans tend to generalize. And unfortunately these generalizations can lead to untruths. And these untruths can lead to unfortunate destruction of peace. The Submission follows individuals and watches their decent into their final assimilation. Although I have yet to know the ending, I feel it is going to be the ultimate submission to the group.

  15. Jonathan Moallem says:

    The effect that the media has on the public was greatly emphasized in this section of the reading. The reporters in this book are vicious and try to start conflicts to spark public interest. One quote that really got me was when the governor said on TV, “even if Mr. Khan is not a security threat- and there is no reason to think he is- his finding his way to victory in the anonymous competition reminds us that radical Islamists could use our democratic institutions and our openness to advance their own agenda.” In other words, the governor was trying to put fear into the minds of the public, saying that radical Islamists in America are going to take advantage of American democracy and impose their beliefs onto people. This is a very ignorant comment, especially coming from the governor. But since someone with such a high authority said it, people will believe it. In philosophy, this persuasive technique is called “appealing to authority” (if a high figure says it, it must be true).

    Another quote that I found to be garbage was from when Asma was reading the newspaper. There was an article that said, “Islam means submission- it makes slaves of its followers, and demands that people of other religions submit to it, too.” This quote totally butchered the meaning of Islam and gave it a connotative twist. Its also ironic that the name of the book is “The Submission”: is the book referring to Islam specifically or the idea that people submit to popular belief and follow what they are told? I think this question is the underlying issue that Amy Waldman is trying to bring up.

    The last thing that struck me as odd in the novel is why Mo refuses to stand up for himself. He had committees working for his behalf, fighting for equality and an end to prejudice, but his support was not present in these committees. Instead, he continues to be mysterious. This stirs up controversy because instead of being firm and telling everyone his side of the story, he lets the conflict build up. It will be interesting to see what he ultimately does in the end of the novel.

  16. 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 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 be good if he stopped trying to spite the people who doubt him.

    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.

  17. Sifaat says:

    The building up politics, elaborating misconception, and intensifying conflicts remind me of Park51. The notion of “defending American values” and “Islam is the problem” are as prevalent as it is in the argument against the garden. However, the biggest resemblance to the real situation is the notion of people judging Islam. When Islamic scholars would dedicate decades of studies with persisting humbleness, people who never looked into the religion gives unquestionable answers of what this religion is about. Just like real life, the book shows the missing respect. Being American and Muslim do not contradict one another- this statement alone can easily dispel these arguments. But even the most obvious can be obscure through an unknowing eye, and Waldman portrayed this through the irrational escalation of the problem.

    Seeing Claire breaking down and Mo in tension also shows how human Waldman made these characters. Even the strongest can break down in tears. It’s human for anyone to fall, no matter how small the obstacle may be. Status means nothing when we act truly upon our struggles. Therefore, Claire should not be looked down upon for crying. Instead, she should be sympathized. If a mother working five jobs a day, castigated for wearing her headscarf when she walks down the street, and comes home crying in her husband’s arm after lullabying her children to sleep, would you call that weakness? No, it’s called being real. And Waldman does a great job keeping the character and the conflict real.

  18. Lucas Vizeu says:

    Several plot points ahead, and things are getting interesting. First, there is the matter of Sean and his headscarf pulling. It was an odd moment for me as when it happens, it… happens. It feels immediate and sudden. Actually it felt small when it happens (to me), yet it ballooned into something else. Ironically, the pulling off of the symbol of oppression (to many of the people in the book) off random women made them scare women enough that there were groups that wouldn’t leave their homes. What the protestors used as a moral high ground (however faulty and idiotic it was) made them do exactly what they claimed Islam did. Seeing Sean later rectify the situation that he started was a really nice touch (especially since the majority of the characters have been largely polarized so it made him feel more human), but it is like saying sorry for lighting a tree on fire… in California… during the dry season… next to various other trees. It still did damage, it continues to do so, and by the time the flames go out, too many people will be hurt, and the flames would have spread.

    Mo’s interview with Sarge was an oddity. Sarge insisted a certain opinion regarding the garden. It wasn’t so much unexpected as it was played out (or it felt that way for me). Then the commercial break goes on, and this conservative talk show host admits that he really didn’t feel anything on 9/11. This brought out mixed emotions in me. At first I was thinking, “yay, conservative talk show hosts are evil, pandering sensationalists, yay, demonizing portrayal, yay!” then I thought, “Wait… why did he tell Mo that… was it to screw with Mo? He really had no reason to do that.” It was odd, and really, a paragraph narration on Sarge’s feelings would have been less awkward and random in my opinion. I still feel a bit off about Sarge asking (I hope rhetorically) why he doesn’t get a garden.

    I noticed at the rally, there was a small group of protestors protesting against the protest against the garden (most redundant sentence of my life). It was weird to see the first real support for the garden outside of the voting committee, the MACC, and the mayor. It was just weird because 99% of the voices have been xenophobic, so the sudden introduction of a third party (inconsequential as it may be) was odd.

    Mo’s father’s introduction was interesting, would like to see how else he may have an impact on the plot. Claire’s affair may just be a fling (certainly looks like it to me) but at the very least, she is moving on. The Islamic garden thing was stupid, we wouldn’t call it a communist garden if it resembled Russian gardens.

  19. mbravo says:

    After reading the second part of The Submission, I felt less drawn to almost all of the characters. I was hoping to see someone take a strong stance against the discrimination about the controversy of Mo and his design. While I found that the characters that struck me most in the beginning of the novel begin to lose their traits that I admired. I can understand why Claire is afraid and why she quells her support for Mo and his design, but nonetheless it is said to see. I felt that she was one of the only people that in supporting Mo had a grand effect because she had lost her husband in the attacks.

    Also I wish Mo had chosen to stand up for his design and had explained himself. Even though he may feel that this is unfair to ask of him, I think it would have only helped his cause. I believe that if you truly want something to work and have a true passion for what you are doing, that you would want to stand up and fight for it. By him not doing this it gives off the impression that he could care less and only wants to win for the sake of winning instead of actually commemorating the victims. Because at the end of the day that is what this is for, the victims.

    I agree with what Daisy said about Sean, it reminds me of a quote I once heard, “If you don’t love me while I’m alive, don’t mourn me when I die.” But I also can sympathize with Sean because I can feel his sadness and regret about how his relationship with his brother, Patrick played out at the end. I could not imagine anything worse than losing someone you love under those circumstances, and for this I feel greatly for Sean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *