Terrorist: A Novel

Updike has always rubbed me as a pompous, egotistical literary figure that seems to look down on his readers... but I cannot dispute that with this book he again asserts his place among the best of all American writers (see also Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Roth, etc).

The skill with which Updike illustrates the conflict between two irreconcilable ways of life is vibrant and captivating. His unrestrained criticism of American Imperialism is rivaled only by his more subtle but equally unrestrained intolerance of anti-Americanism resulting in an honest and insightful look into the world as we had not before known it.

Ahmad, the protagonist, is a very approachable character. Different, no doubt, than those likely to read this book, but relatable in a way that never feels uncomfortable. His development turns the pages until finally a resolution is reached that made me for the first time feel as though a resolution is possible and the differences in the world are maybe not so irreconcilable.

An important book, both timely and timeless, with which Updike reaches yet another generation, suggesting that when all else is failing, perhaps literature can contribute to the saving of the world?

Though not without its flaws (cf. James Wood's review in the New Republic online), "Terrorist" offers a compelling critique of much that is broken, meretricious, shabby or shameful about 21st-century American culture--failing schools, excessive consumerism, intractable racism, inner-city poverty, fragmented families. Set in ugly exurbs of the New York/New Jersey area, the novel dwells on descriptions of urban blight, trashes soap operas, SUVs, shopping malls and TV commercials, and gibes at the state of antiterrorist security measures.

Oddly enough, much of the criticism comes not from Ahmad Ashmawy Mulloy--the American-born terrorist of the book--but from the novel's other American characters. As Jacky Levy, a Jewish highschool guidance counselor, puts it: "America is paved solid with fat and tar, a coast-to-coast tarbaby where we're all stuck" (27). His obese wife is convinced immigrants are putting white Americans out of work, while her sister states that today's youths "can't imagine a life that goes beyond the next fix, the next binge, the next scrape with the cops or the bank or the INS" (136). And the overwhelmed director of Homeland Security bemoans America as "a nation of nearly three hundred million anarchic souls, their millions of daily irrational impulses and self-indulgent actions flitting out of sight just around the edge of feasible surveillability." One provocative character paints George Washington as the Osama bin Laden of the American Revolution.

Mr. Updike exudes some trace of nostalgia for a displaced small-town Puritan New England of the past--the very mentality of which Updike skewered in his famous short story "A & P" almost half a century ago. Overall, "Terrorist" is less successful at getting into the mind of a terrorist than it is at presenting what amounts to a scathing liberal critique of the state of the nation. Updike's pessimistic grimace at contemporary culture rides on an uneven plot that does nevertheless keep you turning the pages, especially as the book nears its threatening climax.

Updike failed to hold my attention throughout the story both because of its utter lack of suspense in any dimension and the inconsistencies in his character development.

As other have stated, you know from page one that the final page will involve an Arab, a truck and a bomb. The lack of anticpation must therefore be compensated for by something else - perhaps excellent writing, interesting character development or original insights. Updike fails to deliver on all three counts.

One particularly slipshod literary technique Updike uses is the phrasing he gives the title character Ahmad. When Ahmad speaks, it is in the voice of an intelligent, thoughtful foreigner. His phrasing captures very well the cadence, vocabulary and grammar of a well spoken non-native speaker of English. Curiously, Ahmad IS an American, raised in New Jersey by a thoroughly American mother. So, what influences created this stilted phrasing? Updike is trying to somehow comvince us that a Jersey teenager speaks like a Pakistani or Egyptian immigrant. There is no need for the technique and its inconsistency with the character's life is grating.

Updike also relies heavily on ethnic/religious stereotypes. Sterotypes often have some basis in fact but generally make for uninteresting literature. However, in Updike's case, the stereotypes make little sense at all. For instance, a high school counselor's entire personality is attributed to his "Jewishness" both by himself and by others who opine on his personality. This is particularly curious given that the man was not raised as a Jew and, in fact, his family had rather adamently turned away from the religion two generations earlier. So where does all the Jewsih influence come from? Likewise, Ahmad's mother's personality is often linked to her Irish heritage. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that her Irish background (which could have been many generations ago) has influenced her one bit. The reader is left once again to wonder what motivates the stereotype - other than simply poor writing and careless character development.

Another out of place literay technique involves the inclusion of fairly lengthy passages from the Korna in Arabic. Obviously, few Western readers will understand Arabic and it seems meerely pretensious for Updike to include the original language rather than paraphrasing or translating the passages. What comes across is an attempt by the autohr to show he has done his research. If that is truly the point then the reader must wonder why the passages are reproduced in Western script rather than Arabic script. After all, the Koran is not written with Western phonetics in mind.
Ultimately, the book leaves one wondering why such a lightweight, poorly constructed piece was released by such a skilled author.

Updike strays from his familiar territory here, with dispiriting results. His three Caucasian characters, while overfamiliar and lacking in dimension, at least manage to sound like recognizable human beings. The people of color Updike's imagined all stubbornly fail to come to life, with the title character the worst offender. Not since Shaw's heyday have so many fictional creations hectored their audience with endless undigested opinions, belching forth in vast paragraphs of tin-earred dialogue. Updike's disgusted with the state of New Jersey/the culture/the world/oatmeal cookies, and by the time the reader's plodded through this epic, the disgust is catching. People don't talk remotely like this yakkety pack; a writer with less cachet would likely never have found a publisher for such a clumsy treatment of interesting material.

"Terrorist leaves the reader ripping through the book to its finale, desperate to find out what happens....Updike's most adventurous and accessible novel in decades."--USA Today

If this is "adventurous" I would hate to be a guinea pig for Updike's more boring novels. I kept waiting for something, anything, to advance the plot of the story. After scarcely making it 100 pages into a 300 page novel I had to stop reading.

In 100 pages all the author manages to do is enter into overly descriptive and wordy assaults on American contemporary culture. Second to that, we get detailed to death by over the top descriptions of everything except anything remotely memorable.

I'm glad this book only cost me $2.99. In a way it's also a shame it cost that much. I could have spent that money on something infinitely more entertaining like socks.

I usually enjoy Updike's novels, and I enjoyed this one too. I

valued it mainly for its trenchant and often witty observations of the darker side of modern life. Urban decay,deteriorating schools, degenerate TV shows, even obesity are skewered. The would-be terrorist was portrayed in a way that I had difficulty identifying with: his monomania , his fundamentalism. The plot was weak, in that it had suspense that just

wimpered out at the end. There are numerous arabic quotations from the Koran in this book- someone more expert than I would need to interpret them. I don't know how much they added to the book, or to our understanding of the (anti)hero.

Even though the novel seems to have been put together in a hurry, I still like Updike's writing style. As a former Cuban refugee who survived terrorism for several years during the revolution. I disagree with the prevailing tendency to stereotype terrorists as devious religious fanatics. Terrorism in Cuba was carried out by teachers, doctors, laborers and even teenagers who were determined to bring Batista's tyranny to an end. Now Cuba is ruled by a worse kind of terror; Castro's communist dictatorship. Simply put, terrorism boomerangs with a vengeance.

Andrew J. Rodriguez
Award-winning author: "Adios, Havana," a Memoir.

Anyone interested in understanding the mind of a terrorist should read this book. We tend to think of terrorists as embodiments of evil, twisted and sadistic creatures, not fully human, deluded by a perverse and cruel interpretation of Islam. Updike turns tables on us and depicts the mind of a terrorist as an idealist searching for purity and intimacy with God in a Godless culture that worships freedom, individualism, materialism, and hedonism. He goes further and sketches ordinary lives that have been ruined by these ultimately inhuman values. Any truly religious or ethical person will sympathize with this criticism of 21st century American culture, though surely not with the protagonist's vision for change. In the end we are left to question our bedrock values of freedom and individualism - freedom for what? Perhaps in the terrorist's critique there is something we can use to improve our own lives and the lives of those we love.

I have been an Updike fan since a colleague first lent me the Rabbit series. Vonnegut, Salinger and Irving all have excellent things to say about Updike - for good reason. And I hold that his "Centaur" is one of my favorite books.

However, as a young Muslim male, born and raised in America, I found this, his latest work, to be intersting to a point, but finally failing in his attempts to both understand and convey the psyche of a potential American Muslim terrorist.

Like the vast majority of Westerners he fails to understand the fundamentals of why "martyrdom" (I put it in quotes because suicide bombing is not martyrdom in the true Muslim tradition) is attractive, even to young muslims in America.

His protrayal of an insidious mullah is, however, well done. As is his interesting portrayal of certain governmental entities.

Overall it is definitely worth a look for someone intersted in the issue. His failure to capture a true muslims psyche is not something he should be criticised for but rather something that shows the need for muslims to help non-muslims understand the muslim perspective.

Like all novels by Updike, "Terrorist" is well-written, engaging, and theologically astute. It's also frightening. What is so chilling about the novel is how very ordinary it is. It's not a "thriller" but an engaging story of an 18 year old named Ahmad and the people in his life: his clueless mother, his world-weary guidance counselor, the girl who flirts with him at school, the manipulative imam at his storefront mosque.

The idea of a religiously-zealous teenager getting involved in such a violent plot is, in Updike's telling, entirely believable. Ahmad's obsession with "purity" and a strict adherence to his religion start out as youthful idealism, but they easily pave the way to religiously-motivated violence.

The novel is composed of five chapters. The first three flow nicely and readers will be anxious to see what happens next. However, come Chapters 4 and 5, it became redundant and boring. Updike inserts these laborious passages. Maybe he did so to portray the stereotypical fundamentalist but it eventually becomes a bore. The ending of the book has some surprising twists that, by that point, are anti-climactic. And the resolution of the story and the main character, Ahmad, is disappointing and came off as just way too convenient of an ending. I expected more from such a revered author as Updike.

Anyone else but John Updike and the reviews would have been very different. This book is in serious need of editing going on and on about totally uninteresting details speckled with occasional action of interest. It is more a description of a story than a story. Mr. Updike does so much editorial commenting, mindreading, and just blathering that I constantly had to skip pages and pages of nonsense. It is the first book by Updike I have read but he seems to violate endlessly the first rule of writing: show don't tell. He can't stop telling. I found this a very unengaging novel.

I recently finished this one, which was somewhat surprising. Typically if a book fails to hook me I will put it down and not resume reading it. I picked this one back up primarily out of boredom.

You kind of have to be bored to read this book. While Updike does provide some nice insights into American culture and the Koran he comes across a bit too much as a "cranky old guy" who pines for the glory days.

I found the novels conclusion a bit predictable and a bit of a let down. Not nearly as thought provoking as I thought it would be. Gets three stars because, hey, it's John Updike and nearly everything he has written has been at least a three star effort.

Not sure why there are so many positive reviews for this book.

I guess everyone else likes listening to some little punk lecture his elders with Islamic surras and some pastor prattle on for ten pages about nothing. I was reminded of one of my son's writing assignments, when he is trying to string it out to fill a whole pages.

Updike has him beat by a mile: ten pages pages of forgettable pointless garbage.

Boring unsympathetic characters, long-winded descriptions of stuff that had no relationship to the plot, and a plot so slow that molasses would tear it up in a foot race.

This book took precious time to read. I wish I had those hours back....

Terrorist is a fictional work of art. It introduces us to a world of despair where the main character, Ahmad, is a teenage boy in search of an identity. He is manipulated by others into the dark world of Islamic terrorism and is part of a major suicide bombing plot before he even has a chance to really comprehend what his actions mean and what their impact will be on those around him that care about him. He is the product of an Egyptian father and an Irish-American mother. Since his father abandoned him early in life, Admad is drawn to Shaikh Rashid as a father figure. The true father figure ends up being a Jewish guidance counselor named Jack Levy.

This book is full of irony and exquisite detail. Jack Levy wants to help the boy; he sees potential in him and cannot resist the urge to encourage him. The novel is full of rich characters with frustrating lives. There is Jack's fat wife who can't lose weight or motivate herself to do much of anything. Jack feels like he has been a failure his entire life. Ahmad's mother believes that she cannot attain a meaningful relationship with a man and is also a frustrated artist. There is even a frustrated head of homeland security who feels that his job is futile.

When I read this book, I felt that the characters could be real. I felt their despair. I saw their lives and their surroundings in great detail through John Updike's narrative. The book is well researched and has quotes from the Koran in English and Arabic. This is my first Updike book, and I can assure you that it will not be the last.

Updike's novel Terrorist follows Ahmad, an Irish-Egyptian high school senior living in New Prospect, NJ, who converted to Islam at 11 years old. He constantly ridicules American culture and society, accusing the West of being 'godless.' Ahmad, while contemptuous of the other students, who he sees as mindlessly conforming to what they see on television and in the movies, himself blindly follows the teachings of his Imam, which lead him into becoming a terrorist. Updike cleverly characterizes Ahmad as being just like the other students in their need to conform, albeit to different ideals.

However, the novel fails to deliver its promises. Ahmad is not easy to sympathize with; Updike gives him few redeeming qualities. Without giving away the ending, it is possible to say that Ahmad is either a completely undynamic character, or Updike is criticizing Islam as an inherently violent religion- because of the last sentence of the book. As is so tiresomely common in post-9/11 fiction, 9/11 is brought up over, and over, and over. While this is acceptable if it is for a good reason, as it is in Terrorist, Updike brings up the subject clumsily, with one character constantly saying things like "We can never be happy again."

One good quote from the book: "There's nothing so stupid people won't go ahead and do it."

A much better take on this theme is William Trevor's short story "The Mourning," c 2000, which deals with an Irish man tricked into terrorism through his desire to be like other "good Irish lads". (Hmmm...Irish, conformity, terrorism.) This story is written very well, and has a character who changes dynamically throughout the course of the story.

Updike has fallen into the trap of trying to create a psychological thriller based on the fear and paranoia of the post-9/11 world, and dissapproval of 'Bush's war.' Terrorist fails to deliver the promised excitement.

Unlike some other reviews posted I enjoyed the book. The thinking of the young man was strong in what he had been taught. Following his logic you could understand how he was moulded. All the things he incorperated into his beliefs we have heard listening to CNN and the other lessons offered by these near animals. The story comes to quite a exciting ending and I have to say that my enjoyment was high and the parts that were somewhat difficult were nuanced quickly to a well written story.

"Terrorist" is simply a remarkable novel on so many levels. It is beautifully written, but not over-written. I was reminded of Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" except that "Terrorist" is a much faster read.

Like many of Updike's novels, Terrorist is tremendously insightful with respect to the discontented side of modern American life. This is far and away the best novel written this year that I have read. Let me simply add that Updike manages to make a young man who is planning on killing thousands of people the most sympathetic and interesting character in the book. This, like the book as a whole, is a remarkable accomplishment.

His Egyptian father abandoned him and his mother when he was three. Now fifteen years later in New Prospect, New Jersey high school student Ahmad Mulloy Ashmawy scorns his hippie Irish-American mother turning to the Islamic teachings of Shaikh Rashid, who runs a storefront mosque for spiritual and emotional guidance. Shaikh advocates retribution to those supporting the Zionist American government.

Ahmad heeds the call to arms against the decadent American culture though he at times acts like a teen when he "competes" for the attention of Joryleen Grant against Tylenol Jones. Central High School Jewish near retirement guidance counselor Jack Levy tries to help Ahmad, but the student sees him as the epitome of why America is a failure. The lad is on the fast self actualization track starting with low esteem metamorphosing into a need to believe and belong to finally turning into a potential TERRORIST.

Using stereotypes to display flawed characters, John Updike is at his best with this frightening intense thriller in which he makes it clear that social strata and economics make for the breeding grounds of terrorists here (Think England), in Iraq and elsewhere. The author's basic premise is that the West is losing the hearts of children who find physiological and psychological nourishment elsewhere while leaders posture like Panglois (Candide) that this is the best of all worlds. The TERRORIST is chilling.

Harriet Klausner

John Updike's new novel, "Terrorist", is so unlike his previous twenty-one novels that it jumps out of the pack, like a robust, jet black, green eyed kitten in a litter of gray siblings; and like a crimson rose in a green field of lettuce, it will startle, charm and beckon you.

It is written in prose so elegant that I thought of the very best of Truman Capote's novels. ("Breakfast at Tiffany's" came to my mind, about which Norman Mailer said, "It's so perfect that I wouldn't change a word of it").

The story is about an eighteen years old high school senior named Ahmad Ashmawy Mulloy. Born to an Irish American woman named Terry Malloy (whose skin is so white and freckled that it "seems unnaturally white, like a leper's") and an Egyptian exchange student, Ahmad is a loner. Writes Updike: "His religion keeps him from drugs and vice, though it also holds him rather aloof from his classmates and the studies on the curriculum". When Ahmad was only three years old, Terry is abandoned by her husband, and she works as a nurse's aid in a hospital. It's obvious to her now that her husband had used her to gain American citizenship. At age eleven, Ahmed starts his religious instruction from a Lebanese Imam named Shaikh Rashid at a mosque, a converted dance studio above a shop in New Prospect, New Jersey. He attends Central High School. Ahmed's religious instruction provides an opportunity to Updike for some long discourses on Islam in the modern world. Upon graduation, instead of attending college, Ahmad secures a job with the help of the Imam, as truck driver for a furniture company called Excellency Home Furnishings. Because of the large number of reviews written, there is no need to narrate the whole story. The most remarkable aspect of this novel, however, is the author's luminous prose. It has the pleasant, subdued and endearing glow of the twilight of the tropics, befitting the author's twilight years. Read his description of the girls in Ahmad's high school: "Their bare bellies, adorned with shining navel studs and low-down purple tattoos, ask, "What else is there to see?" About Joryleen Grant who often flirts with Ahmad, Updike writes: "There is an endearing self-confidence in how compactly her cocoa-brown roundness fills her clothes, which today are patched and sequined jeans, worn pale where she sits, and a ribbed magenta shorty top both lower and higher than it should be." Simply lovely, I thought. And this description of God: "There is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsistent; He is the light by which the sun looks black. He does not blend with our reason but makes our reason bow low, its forehead scraping the dust and bearing like Cain the mark of dust."

I have read a few unflattering reviews of this novel in newspapers and also on the Internet. But to readers, especially those who haven't read any of Updike's novels, I wish to say: Read "Terrorist". But read it slowly to savor the beauty of his crystalline prose.

My only disappointment in this novel is that John Updike describes the terrorist as a loner. Why do so many authors so often describe terrorists, serial murderers, rapists and other sociopaths as loners? Don't they know that quite a few sociopaths live in suburbs in expensive houses, work at rich companies and sit in fancy offices, drive luxury cars, attend parties, and surround themselves with acquaintances, and appear quite normal, on the surface at least? Apart from this minor issue, the book is quite remarkable and a joy to read.

I was looking for some really good writing, looking for one of those tales where you can almost taste the words, where, as you get closer to the end, you try to read real slow because you don't want the book to end. Updike's Terrorist looked like a good bet.

John Updike, now 75 years old, doesn't disappoint. Ahmad, a high school student (and the terrorist), sneers down at Joryleen, a fellow student, as she tries to be friendly, and sees . . .

"The tops of her breasts push up like great blisters in the scoop of the indecent top that at its other hem exposes the fat of her belly and the contour or her deep navel. He pictures her smooth body, darker than caramel but paler than chocolate, roasting in that vault of flames and being scorched into blisters . . ."

Ahmad is the son of an Egyptian father and Irish mother, married to gain US citizenship for the father. Abandoned by his father, and left to find his own way by his mother, Ahmad devotes himself fervently to his Muslim god, a lonely stance he holds counter to all around him.

Jack Levy is the high school counselor, worn down by years of mind numbing bureaucracy at school and a long dead relationship with Beth, his wife, who has become so fat and lethargic that she has trouble extricating herself from her Lazy Boy recliner to answer the phone. Jack finds a bit of respite in a affair with Terry, Ahmad's mother, ". . . a woman with yes in her eyes."

And Updike manages to weave together, the fates of Ahmad, and Jack, and Bev, and Terry, unlikely conspirators, in a terrorist plot that will keep you reading way past your bedtime.

Other one-star reviews have said enough about the failings of this book. It's not very well written, the characters (with the exception of the young boy) are shallow and unconvincing, and the ending is totally implausible - I felt as if Updike had simply lost interest, or had no idea where he wanted the story to lead. I read it dutifully, having enjoyed Updike's other books, but it was a struggle and I got nothing out of it. The book's going back to the book swap where I found it - I'm glad I didn't spend good money on it.

This was an excellent novel by a talented author. It is well worth reading for people who are interested in what has happened to contemporary American society. The main character is Ahmad Ashmawy, who is an 18-year-old about to graduate from Central High School in New Prospect, New Jersey. (A fictional city, as far as I can tell.) He lives with his mother, a nurse's aide and his father has left him. Mr. Updike has worked the form of parable or apologue skillfully while developing his interesting plot. I was so fascinated that I couldn't put it down! His environment suffers from urban blight; things are not the way they used to be in a small New Jersey town. Teenagers aren't respectful, poverty is in everyone's midst, and loose morals are the order of the day. So, it is not surprising that our society is permeated by terrorism. This environment is thus fertile ground for the recruiting of terrorists. The Director of Homeland Security, Mr. Haffenreffer, plays a small role in the novel. He is Hermione's boss and Hermione is Elizabeth's sister. "Terrorist" presents the portrait of a terrorist. Ahmad has been studying the Qu'ran with his mentor, Shaikh Rashid, at a local mosque on Main Street since he was eleven years old. He is thoroughly conversant with the Qu'ran and he feels devoted to Allah. The principles of the Qu'ran are more dangerous than the man himself. Ahmad studies and absorbs them, but he is a sympathetic character. He loves his mother, runs track, and is interested in a sensible career as a truck driver when he graduates. What makes him good material for terrorism is the fact that he is rather alienated from his peers because he becomes too wrapped up in his religious studies. Additionally, he has developed an Al-Qaeda-like hatred of the American capitalist economy with the assistance of his mentor's teachings. He is willing to die at the end for that crazy cause of blowing up an odious capitalist, commercial public structure-- the Lincoln Tunnel. One idea for an essay on the novel I have is "the role of the significant other in Ahmad's life." Which brings us to the other lovable main character--who solidifies the parable schematic by representing the "Good"--Jack Levy, Ahmad's guidance counselor. It is he who shows concern for Ahmad's future by suggesting a more challenging future to him, other than truck driving. He even brings college catalogues over to his home right after graduation. He subsequently has an affair with Ahmad's mother, the zaftig Theresa. Mr. Levy represents the American People and the American Way in all its variety. I think Mr. Updike subtly counsels us that it is that standard that must prevail in society if we are to continue to find life worth living, achievement worth striving for. Mr. Levy is a little tired of a problematic US society, but he is pleased with his traditional success. His wife Beth is a librarian. They have a son, an opthamologist, and grandchildren in New Mexico. Shaikh Rashid, Ahmad's Qu'ran teacher, is the one who connects Ahmad with his first truck driving job. But wouldn't you know, his boss, Charlie Chehab, has terrorist plans for the young man? The bomb is ready in the truck, and they need Ahmad to follow Allah to the Lincoln Tunnel and explode a specific area. Ahmad is very willing to sacrifice himself for the cause. The day is set, and Ahmad gets in the truck, but there is a wonderful ironic twist at the end, which serves the form of parable very well. Moreover, it is not ridiculous because dealing with terrorism requires people showing strong resolve and taking tough measures. Jack Levy is contacted by Hermione Fogel, the Undersecretary of Homeland Security, who is his sister-in-law, and she tells him that Ahmad is entangled with Muslim terrorists. She has details of their actions. Mr. Levy waits for Ahmad that morning a few blocks from the turn to the Lincoln Tunnel, and Ahmad picks him up with bomb in the truck. They talk. Mr. Levy points up the error of his ways. Charlie Chehab ironically turns out to be a CIA operative. Ahmad goes through the tunnel and decides not to detonate the explosive. Mr. Levy is relieved. Perhaps now he can turn over a new leaf. There is hope yet for him to enter a more socially acceptable course of behavior. The tone of the novel is ultimately plaintive, but where there is a will, there is a way, and that is surely what Mr. Levy in all his fairness tries to impress upon the young man. Good can prevail over the evil of terrorism. Shaikh Rashid has skipped town, and we should hope forever! A tremendous effort.

Instead of concentrating on one of Americ's ills and not willing to jump right into the rushing political and social stream, Mr. Updike has stayed by the shore and dipped his bit toe (or pen)into the rushing water. His book certainly painted sorid picture of the TV, the Black Community, the schools, single mothers, teenagers, the Muslim comminity and capitalism and right down to the FBI's inadequacy by fumbling the job.

The way Mr. Updike tells it weare all dommed unless a few righteous people can save us. How about a whimpy schoolteacher suddenly beoming hero? to make the story slighly palletable he injected a rediculous sex scene that did nothing for the book.

All of the characters in The Terorist are trapped by their own demons. Ahmad's mother, a single parent works as a nurse's aide but strives to be an artist. Ahmad is left alon to his own devises and finds solace in his departed father's religion. Fortunately, Ahmad has read and interpeted the Koran correctly and his God believes in life.

The school teacher, Mr. Levy, may have awakened from his slumber to suddenly take an inteest in a student but becomes more intrigued by the mother and when he finally admits to Ahmad tht he and his mother are lovers the boy is not fazed at all.

And, how trite is it to have the aide to the Secretary of Defense know that her siter's husband is the guidence coundelor for a muslim student driving a truck and pin point the terrorists for the FBI? Perhaps, Mr. Updike believes that thee is no such thing as a coincidence.

The most redeeming character in the book is the owner of the furniture store who totally believes that the United States is the best place to live. As a poor Muslim immigrant arring in the U.S., he was ble to intergrate without a problem and establish himself as a legitimate citizen and gratefully upholds the laws of his new country.

For readers who are not familar with the Muslim extremists this may be an enlightening experience. For others who realize the patient and the power of the extrimists this book remains as a very small step forward.

Whoever believes things get better with age shouldn't read "Terrorist"...apparently Updike's losing his touch, playing it "safe"--that's just not his style. Everything in this book's predictable, within the box. In most of John Updike's works, his writing demonstrates just how complex life and the human mind really are..it's just too "simple" and uneducated to say that the young man in this book is the way he is because his estranged father's Muslim, as well as his mentor at the mosque he went to..his mother was no better than the father was. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would get in the way of bonding with my son, how dare she play the "victim" role in this novel, if she would've tried to have a bond with her son, he wouldn't have ended up attempting disaster. Skip this one, for sure.

The monomaniacal fulfillment of the Jihad against the west through brainwashing and manipulation of its "soldiers" is well demonstrated in this great work. Buttressed by twisted interpretations of the Quaran to persuade a participant who had all of the ingredients to be coerced and then double-crossed by a disingenuous manipulator gave the novel an incredible twist.

Updike helps the reader understand the main character's virulent disdain for his situation, heritage and a world that seemed so incongruous with the only place he felt grounded--his religion. It made his willingness to malign a world that he was so sure that he knew, but discovered that he really did not.

As with all of Updike's novels, the character development can get tedious, but is buttoned up and very necessary later in the book. You won't be able to put this book down during the astonishing final chapter and will let out a big sigh when it ends.

Cons:

1) There was not much character building.

2) Way TOO MUCH sexual innuendo. It added close to absolutely nothing to any of the plot. (I'm a young male, not an easily offended 'ol timer')

3) Sometimes the writing seemed pointless and lead to no where. (IE a 10-15 page setting where Ahmad attends a church service. It went on and on in detail adding nothing to the story.)

Pros:

1) Though not in depth the novel did illustrate a process of corrupting a young and fragile mind.

I wouldn't recommend this book for the sake of wasting time and finding a better piece of literature to spend time reading.

Updike's "Terrorist" is a scathing look at American culture that is difficult to deny. The novel is at once believable and unbelievable - just as are the times in which we are living.

As this is my first Updike novel I am compelled to ask - are his women characters always so universally repulsive? I thought I was reading Hemmingway there for a minute!

The more I think about my experience with "Terrorist", the more disappointed I become. Here's why:

An impressionable, Muslim zealot youth. A jaded Jew. A fiery Irish single mother. A teenage Black prostitute and her pimp boyfriend. An obese, soap-opera addicted White wife, and her Homeland Security Christian zealot sister. Did I leave out any worst-case, bleak stereotypes? Neither, it seems, did Updike.

While I enjoyed Updike's masterful scene setting and detailed description, I found the characters one dimensional and the plot too convienient, too obvious.

The only character who steps outside the pigeonhole Updike assigns them, Ahmad the "terrorist", seems to defy his deeply held beliefs on a whim, not from some intense philosophical internal struggle. As a result, I found the ending weak and anticlimactic.

Ultimately, the novel left me unsatisfied.

Evidently a lot of people love this man's writing, but they must be loving something else because this book is about worthless. Forgetting the issue of PC-ness he broaches by having an Arab-American as the terrorist of the title, it's just not very likely. Other reviewers have said that he chose this character as his instrument to reflect on the state of America today, and his origin serves solely as a plot device to cause his disaffection with this society. But I think if that's the case, it's a weak and unnecessary device, given that there are plenty of Americans who are as disaffected and more prone to violence than some half-Arab New Jersey teenager. As a matter of fact, although it's a topic not often discussed, the main terrorist threat in America comes from white Christian extremists. These people aren't even theoretical; they've actually been responsible for real terrorist acts all over the United States.

Be that as it may, Updike is one of the least astute character writers I've ever read. If anyone reading this doesn't like that assessment, I suggest picking up Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" or "The Brothers Karamazov". Now that's some character writing. I just felt like he endlessly described people's outsides and never touched their insides. It's a book, which means that you have the ability to show the reader the thoughts and feelings of a person, but not to adequately depict their facial expressions or colorations (in other words, it's not a picture). And yet he rarely took the opportunity to get inside anyone's mind, even the main character Ahmad's. And what little internal narration he did give Ahmad was pretty much the same thing over and over again. As for the other characters, he may have intended them to be mockeries of real people instead of making them real people, but if he was doing that I certainly didn't pick up any hints of satire to clue me in. The whole book was dead serious, and dead boring.

I tend to lump all books into two main categories: they're either about the characters or the plot. Given that the characters were such a failing in this book, you might be tempted to think the plot redeems it in some way. You would be wrong. The story itself advances slowly with about three-fourths of the book being wasted in unnecessary build-up (which would be fine if there were decent characters, but as it is...). The climax is so anti-climactic it actually made me sleepy. There's absolutely no payoff in the end.

If you're a fan of this guy, perhaps this book could work for you. For me, it was an unfortunate reading choice and a complete waste of time. If you want to read books about domestic terrorists that are just as implausible but a lot more exciting, pick up Tom Clancy.

After reading Infidel, I read Terrorist. Updike researched well. He was able to get inside the head of a ultimately fatherless young man whose fantasy of his father got the best of him. He wanted desperately to please his father who was replaced by his Islam faith. Unhappy or lonely young people have a tendency to attach themselves to various religions in very extreme ways. Check out the ages of cult members and other extremist faiths including Christianity. I don't think Updike is the unAmerican. I think he is allowing us to see what is going on in a young extremist's mind who chose Islam because of his father's nationality. Updike probably isn't far off the mark.

I read this book because of the author's reputation as one of the preemininent authors of the 20th century. I was sorely disappointed by this book which I thought would be a cogent exploration of the roots of terrorism. Sadly, most of the material dealing with this subject was cliched and shed very little light on the subject. There are far better books out there, both fiction and non-fiction that lend clarity and new insights into the origins of this scourge.

Updike dwells far too much and in excruciating detail on the minutiae of the character's lives and bizarre peccadillos.

The female characters were ridiculous and not even slightly believable. Terry, Ahmed's mother was presented as a second rate artist and first rate nymphomaniac. Her relationship with Mr. Levy, her son guidance councelor came out of the blue and was simply implausible considering the sad-sack description of Jack Levy. Jack's wife Beth is an obese door-mat type and the author's description of the gross and disgusting nature of her physicality went on ad nauseum until it became clear that the author bears an intense dislike of women in general and fat women in particular. The African American characters were simply caricatures. Joryleen Grant is a wise-cracking tough-talking slut with a heart of gold who eventually falls under the sway of (wait for it...) Tylenol Jones! Tylenol Jones?? Of course, Tylenol is a thug with no redeeming characteristics.

Beyond all this, the story was plodding and excruciatingly boring and the denouement silly and contrived. One would expect this from a high school creative writing class, but not from an author of John Updike's calibur.

I thank Mr. Updike for penning a book that delves deeper than daily sensationalist news-headlines whose goal is to instill fear to boost their meager ratings.

His book "Terrorist" asks tough questions not directly but indirectly by taking us into the life of a boy who just because of his name and religious affiliation gets treated differently.

No doubt there are those who would dismiss all attempts to understand "the other" as "fiction" and "unreal."

But Mr. Updike offers us into the window of characters who seem so real that its easy to make a connection. Their hope becomes the reader's hope, the character's sadness becomes the readers sadness, and his ability to understand, grow, and change his opinion of "the other" becomes a lesson for all of us incapable of doing that to attempt to do the same.

Mr. Updike as an author has proved that he is indellible literary genius. Who knew he'd succeed in a subject as politicized, dehumanized, and impersonalized as the terrorist.

After reading Infidel, I read Terrorist. Updike researched well. He was able to get inside the head of a ultimately fatherless young man whose fantasy of his father got the best of him. He wanted desperately to please his father who was replaced by his Islam faith. Unhappy or lonely young people have a tendency to attach themselves to various religions in very extreme ways. Check out the ages of cult members and other extremist faiths including Christianity. I don't think Updike is the unAmerican. I think he is allowing us to see what is going on in a young extremist's mind who chose Islam because of his father's nationality. Updike probably isn't far off the mark.

I read this book because of the author's reputation as one of the preemininent authors of the 20th century. I was sorely disappointed by this book which I thought would be a cogent exploration of the roots of terrorism. Sadly, most of the material dealing with this subject was cliched and shed very little light on the subject. There are far better books out there, both fiction and non-fiction that lend clarity and new insights into the origins of this scourge.

Updike dwells far too much and in excruciating detail on the minutiae of the character's lives and bizarre peccadillos.

The female characters were ridiculous and not even slightly believable. Terry, Ahmed's mother was presented as a second rate artist and first rate nymphomaniac. Her relationship with Mr. Levy, her son guidance councelor came out of the blue and was simply implausible considering the sad-sack description of Jack Levy. Jack's wife Beth is an obese door-mat type and the author's description of the gross and disgusting nature of her physicality went on ad nauseum until it became clear that the author bears an intense dislike of women in general and fat women in particular. The African American characters were simply caricatures. Joryleen Grant is a wise-cracking tough-talking slut with a heart of gold who eventually falls under the sway of (wait for it...) Tylenol Jones! Tylenol Jones?? Of course, Tylenol is a thug with no redeeming characteristics.

Beyond all this, the story was plodding and excruciatingly boring and the denouement silly and contrived. One would expect this from a high school creative writing class, but not from an author of John Updike's calibur.

I thank Mr. Updike for penning a book that delves deeper than daily sensationalist news-headlines whose goal is to instill fear to boost their meager ratings.

His book "Terrorist" asks tough questions not directly but indirectly by taking us into the life of a boy who just because of his name and religious affiliation gets treated differently.

No doubt there are those who would dismiss all attempts to understand "the other" as "fiction" and "unreal."

But Mr. Updike offers us into the window of characters who seem so real that its easy to make a connection. Their hope becomes the reader's hope, the character's sadness becomes the readers sadness, and his ability to understand, grow, and change his opinion of "the other" becomes a lesson for all of us incapable of doing that to attempt to do the same.

Mr. Updike as an author has proved that he is indellible literary genius. Who knew he'd succeed in a subject as politicized, dehumanized, and impersonalized as the terrorist.

Updike's, "Terrorist" is a timely novel. Newspapers and magazines are still full of the ebb and flow of terrorist and counter-terrorist operations. It is difficult for me, and by extension I think of American society in general, to understand why anyone would choose to become a suicide-bomber. Though they are only a fraction of the terrorists they are the most puzzling. So, I bought Updike's latest book on the strength of his reputation as a novelist and the reviews claiming his understanding of the radical mindset.

On the surface the story is about a teenager, Ahmed, who embraces an austere form of Islam. His mother, perhaps feeling guilty about his father's departure, leaves him to his own devices. An intervention is clearly necessary to save Ahmed from his Imam and Updike chooses Mr. Levy, a sixtyish guidance counselor at Ahmed's high school. The story's trajectory predictably puts Ahmed and Mr. Levy together in the truck carrying the bomb.

Scratch the surface though and you find...well, read on.

Ahmed is largely unforgiving, except, illogically, to the father who abandoned him. He is unapologetic, never needing to justify his beliefs to others or even to himself. His isolation and social awkwardness are not the product of his own attitudes, but of everyone else's. In almost every way, Ahmed acts like any teenager, if a bit more radical. And that is the problem. Remove the radical Islamic element from the novel and you have a story of a generic teenager. If Updike is saying that suicide-bombers are just like "ordinary" people, with the same problems and fears, I think he missed the boat. There clearly is a difference. If there weren't, then suicide-bombers would be far more prevalent. What I had hoped for was a deeper understanding of why an Islamist would choose to commit suicide in a manner that kills as many other people as possible. Failing that, I would have liked to understand why Ahmed as an individual would make such a choice; his social problems aren't enough since so many other children of broken families face the same issues without making such a gruesome decision. I got neither.

The story is structured to propel Ahmed, and by extension the reader, toward his violent final act - exit stage left. But we are robbed of even that. Surprise endings aren't bad. I like them. But only when they result in that, "Aha!" moment when all of the pieces fall together. This wasn't one of them. I felt blind-sided and left wondering just what the point of the book was.

It might seem that I hated the book. I didn't. There were moments when I felt that Updike had looked into the soul of America and understood it. The scenes devoted to Mr. Levy and his wife are masterful. I just felt that he hadn't delivered on the promise of the book.

Updike was, and still is, considered one of the premiere voices of American society. But, "Terrorist" showed me that he hasn't quite mastered the subtleties of another culture. In the final analysis, I'm not sure Updike understands suicide-bombers anymore than I do. He does put a more human face on them. And his writing is superb. In that respect, "Terrorist" is worth reading. But don't expect to gain a deeper insight into terrorism.

"Terrorist" is one of Updike's weaker novels. It feels rushed and sparse, lacking the complex characters that make up his other novels. Too many coincidences and a reliance on a central character that never seems real lowers this novel to the sub-par. For those of you who haven't been exposed to Updike yet, you're better off reading something from the Rabbit series or "The Centaur" than this novel. I am a tremendous fan of Updike and I was, needless to say, disappointed.

This novel is too formulaic. There is the alienated high school student from a dysfunctional family, the nursing assistant mother who has artistic aspirations, the old, disillusioned Jewish counselor, the unpleasant Muslim teacher, and on and on it goes, with characters that are too predictable. The dialogue is often unrealistic, the author unloads a great deal of information in the mouths of some characters--Charlie, for example, sitting in the truck next to Ahmad--going on and on about U.S. Revolutionary history. It doesn't ring true. The ending also seems forced and hard to believe. At the end of the novel, I felt cheated.

I enjoyed the rabbit books and Updike's descriptions of the urban landscape. Updike is a word smith and can make any mundane topic interesting. But with Terrorist he's out of his league and the story just gets bogged down with uninteresting characters and a lack of interesting storytelling. Updike has just run out of things to say. He pays more attention to his intellect than he does his characters.

But still high quality literary exercise from one of the greatest writers of the last half century. A couple of surprises from John, but you know you'll get real character development, and a little bit of liberalism, New Yorker style.

John Updike wrote some very good books, but this isn't one of them. Although the premise is believable -- young Arab-American convinces himself that an act of terrorism on American soil is the way to go -- the contrived plot and ridiculous ending make it a waste of time. Only a writer with Updike's impressive credentials could get a novel this bad published. An embarrassment from start to finish.

This book disappointed me. Ahmad didn't ring true as a 18 year old raised in the USA by a single mother. The bond between mother and son lacked emotion; their relationship wasn't believable. Where was the American side of Ahmad? His American education had no influence on him? Unless he was kept in a box with nothing but the Koran to read, he had to have more insight into American life, into American honor and pride, into being an American.

Where was that human insight that John Updikes does so well? He missed the mark.

This book was necessary in these times for one reason: the insight into the mind of the Muslim exetremist. John Updike, as usual, gave us a literary style that lacked nothing and kept the pages turning as we learned to love the characters and get wound up in the intricate plot. A thriller that reads like a classic, this will be on shelves for a long time, telling a tale that all Americans need to hear.

TERRORIST helped to explain one possible answer to the big "why" question. Why would a person knowingly destroy himself to ensure that a bomb/devise would kill an enemy? I understand the concept of war, but not the concept of martyrdom that accompanies this behavior. I was able to understand and emphasize with the main character, even though his actions were incomprehensible to me. Although I am only a mediocre fan of Updike, his writing style did not interfer with the reading of this book. It also contains an element of suspense for the mystery reader.

'Terrorist' is an easy, enjoyable read. Updike's crisp writing style supports a well researched plot and interesting storyline. Given 9/11, it's a disturbing portrayal of a sinister culture (fundatmentalist, anti-Western Islam) possible in 'Anytown' USA. The ultimate ending is kept out of reach; however, the final sequence is a bit forced, hastily assembled with a couple of convenient plot enablers thrown in without justification. Overall, it's a good, quick summer book but falls short.

Terrorist is a sophisticated, subtle book on terrorism -- more of a literary work than a journalistic work with a simple social or political agenda. Indeed, the novel is bound to irritate readers of all different political viewpoints precisely because Updike's handling of the story deliberately avoids propaganda and moves straight towards the ambiguities and mixed motives that the main characters experience. It is clearly a book that will be far more appreciated 20 years from now than it is upon its release, but that shouldn't stop curious, open-minded readers from seeing and thinking about what Updike has accomplished. As a side issue, it is as mistaken to reject this book for presenting the viewpoint of a terrorist sympathetically as it would be to reject Crime & Punishment for presenting the viewpoint of a murderer sympathetically. Sympathy for a viewpoint is not the same thing as acceptance of it, and Updike doesn't advocate terrorism any more than Dostoevsky advocates murder.

I was looking for an insightful piece of contemporary literature. Unfortunately I discovered a hack superficial attempt at an overplayed theme. The plot drags on slowly. Updike's prose is verbose. Each run-on-sentence grinds on mercilessly. The characters are universally stereotypical and transparent. His descriptions of the characters are so overplayed they are insulting and his descriptions border on racist. We are told that the guidance counselor is Jewish, that is fine. But every other page describes him as this or that "Jew". His wife is Lutheran, Yet we hear her religion mentioned again and again. She is obese...fine...but Updike wastes page after page mercilessly describing each roll of fat on her body. We hear that the main character is Arabic, yet every other word is "Arab" this and that. His mother is Irish Catholic. How many times must he refer to her a "Mick"? The two African American characters are a pimp named "Tylenol" and a church singer who becomes his prostitute. Updike is entitled to his opinions of American society; yet I found the book to be terribly pessimistic. Finally the end is a disappointment as well, with no real revelation to explain the main characters final action.

Updike's something of a national treasure, of course, but this is an insipid piece of amateurish hackwork. Or maybe it just pales in comparison to DeLilo's "Falling Man", which I finished just prior to "Terrorist" (Q: Do I need to get out more? A: Probably).

I am grateful that John Updike wrote this book, which is one of his best efforts since he concluded the Rabbit series. Critics will fault him for taking on such a broad subject and for daring to write about characters who come from a world distant from his own, but Updike's writing skill allows him to do that. And he does it well. Terrorist is entertaining, yes, but it's also important, guiding readers a bit deeper into the motivations of people who really do have it in for us. If some of the criticisms the characters level at America seem hackneyed, maybe it's because they are so in real life, too.

I made the classic mistake of believing the PR on the book jacket.. This book is definitely sub-par for Mr. Updike. I thought the plot was too simplistic, and the character development (per spin, deep) was shallow and not completely believeable. This book captures a very small piece of both urban culture and the psyche of the terrorist, but lacks sufficient detail to make it a meaningful piece of work. And, I could put it down..frequently.. frankly, had to force myself to finish it.

Updike has fallen into two traps - the verbosity of Clancy and the simple mindedness of Dumbo. The book is agony for the first two-thirds (unless you want to be swept into the abject horror of the details of one person's life). He completely misses the development of the true issue - how, really how one slips from normalicy to fanaticism. He's too good to let that go. Yet he did, he just slides by it. If you want to know how that happens, spend some time with the books of Bernard Lewis.

As an Updike fan, I looked forward to reading his latest. His descriptions of characters and places were detailed and interesteing, and it was fun to see the plot lines begin to develop and intersect, however the conclusion felt somewhat contrived to me, and certainly difficult to believe.

Contrived attempt to portray the formative years of a homegrown terrorist that belongs on a FOX channel teen series. Every potential punch is pulled back so far that the ludicrous ending amounts to a baby tap.

The result is little more than late middle-age wish fulfillment Updike's done better decades ago (check out "Roger's Version" for an example of a novel that succeeds in exploring transgressive themes both effectively and playfully).

Don't write books just so you can hope to get laid by younger women.

This was an absolutely fascinating book. I could feel more of what this young man was going through than I ever dreamed I could. I was very frightened for him, our country and our children of all cultures.

Thank you John Updike for opening our eyes regarding WHY do terrorists develop. Once you understand why somebody becomes a terrorist you can begin to heal the WORLD and enlighten others to just GET ALONG. Peace. It's a wonderful feeling.