A Hologram for the King by Dave Eggers – 352 Pages
This won't be the usual salient charms post because I just want to focus on two passages in this book and actually start with a review.
I heard about this book from one of my friends and I though I'd give it a shot. I was looking for an easy read to get back into the reading scene, so it seemed like the perfect gateway. Was it helpful in that aspect? Yes. I finished this in three days, and I enjoyed the writing.
The prose was simple. Short and clean sentences with a few longer, philosophical thoughts thrown about to give it flavor. And, now it sounds like I am giving you a recipe for the type of novel you should write if you want it to be intriguing and minimalistic at the same time. I cannot guarantee it'll work, but if you try, tell me how it goes.
In any case, this book is about a middle aged man who goes to Saudi Arabia to strike a deal with the king for a huge IT company. He is close to being bankrupt, he is divorced, he needs money to pay off his daughter's college tuition, and he is depressed because he's been kicked out of his area of expertise due to the changing tides in the business world.
As you can see from my short synopsis, the protagonist (?) of the book seems like he might have potential for a good story, but that is not at all the case. He is not interesting or attention-catching. In fact, he is extremely dull and miserable. He is bitter, lost in his own world, and gloomy, ALL THE TIME. I can remember only a few scenes where he wasn't contemplating his mortality, his uselessness, his family problems, his lack of money, etc. etc.
The ending is dissatisfying, similar to this man's life I suppose. I finished the book and realized I had not changed as a person one bit other than being someone who had read the book. I didn't learn anything. I didn't even see a new way of writing, telling a story, or setting a scene. Everything in my life kept going on as they were, and I am blogging about it now because otherwise this book and the time it took for me to read it will really have been a complete waste.
A girl of about seven, wearing a burqa, came to Salem's window. Immediately he pushed a button to lock the doors. She stayed before his window, tapping it, rubbing her fingers together.
Now Alan noticed there were dozens of women and children, mostly female, all in black burqas, floating form car to car, approaching windows, floating away.
Alan began to roll down his window. Seeing a more sympathetic face, the girl hurried to his side, her hands outstretched.
– Don't, don't! Salem said. Roll it up.
Alan obeyed, and the rising glass almost caught the girl's tiny fingers. Now she tapped on the glass with increased urgency, her head titled in inquiry, her mouth moving feverishly. Alan smiled and showed his empty palms. She didn't seem to understand or care. She kept tapping.
Salem got her attention and pointed upward. Like that, she turned and left. It was like some kind of magic trick.
– What does that mean, Alan asked, when you point upward like that? He mimicked the gesture.
Salem's attention had returned to his phone.
– It means God will provide.
– And that works?
– It ends the discussion. (p. 240-41)
I hated this passage. Not the passage itself but the reality of it. It reminded me of how there are people out there who think this way. Who try to comfort others this way. Who run from responsibility this way. Who think God is this wild abstraction that is capable of providing and does so in a weird comical irony.
God will provide. I believe this. God is the sole provider for me. Anything in between is a means. Trees, animals, shopping centers. The original source, I know, is God. And He provides. He provides more than enough for all of us. But we have to go and get what we want. Things we need don't simply materialize into our lives. I don't sit down on the dinner table with my family and wait for our plates and bowls to integrate out of the thin air. And just as we get what we need through multiple chains (e.g. world > soil > trees > fruits > farmers > grocery story > me), and just as we can facilitate the movement of what God gives us, we can also obstruct it. Greed, over-consumption, wastefulness.
God will provide? God does provide. There are enough resources for our species. We just concentrate it on specific groups and prevent it from reaching others. And when those in need call out to us, we are like, God will give you some too. Don't worry, keep praying. Or, we deflect. We come up with phrases like the ever famous, IF there were a God, why are these people hungry and living in poverty? It's not our job to look after them! Why doesn't God give them food and shelter? See! No God! Ha!
How distorted does the notion of God have to be in a society for this kind of thinking to exist? Can anyone, who has an inkling of logic and observational skill, actually come to this conclusion or ask this question? Do people seriously look around themselves and reach conclusions like these? Do they seek answers to their spiritual questions through oversimplified naïveté? Apparently and sadly, yes. Yes they do, yes they can. And the concept of God – I don't think I want to get into the need for a structure in that realm yet.
The other passage that struck home:
They went back to watching the valley below, but Alan was shaken. Yousef had been lighthearted during his questions, but there was something very serious and very sad under his smile, and Alan knew what it was. It was the knowledge that there would be no fighting, and there would be no struggle, no stand taken, and that the two of them, because they were not lacking materially, because despite injustices in their countries they were the recipients of preposterous bounty, would likely do nothing. They were content, they had won. The fighting would be done by others, elsewhere. (p. 276)
Basically the root of the continuation of all our present problems. Most of the time, only people directly affected by a problem try to change it, because while others might know that there is a problem and they should probably help to fix it, why bother risking the comfort they have for a fight that won't directly help them? And even then, even if fighting against the problem helped them, if they are in a slightly better position that the people facing the problem, why give up the privileges and bonuses of their position?
So fights are done by others, elsewhere, and we sit back and relax because we have the luxury to do so. And what hurts the most about this passage is that we are self-aware. We know that we should be helping fight for these things, fight against injustices, but we are incredibly selfish at the same time and can't be bothered.
Lots of quills,
Belle