Sift and Search for That we Cannot Understand

 (Kite Runner Review)
Prompts:
2. For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell? (in other words, for whom would you recommend this book?)
3. What are the weaknesses of this book, in your opinion?

You’d be amazed at the controversy this book brings to literature circle discussions. The book in question is a novel called The Kite Runner,written by a man named Khaled Hosseini. This book is all about betrayal, redemption, and a twisted war. The main characters are two boys named Hassan and Amir, whom are the best of friends. Because of his roots, Hassan is hurt and humiliated, and Amir doesn’t do anything to stop it. Overcome with guilt for not helping, Amir pushes Hassan away, not realizing that this wasn’t the right course of action. A while after Hassan is hurt, the Russians invade Kabul, their hometown. Hassan having been gone a good amount of time, only Amir and his father are left to flee to Pakistan and eventually America. Amir spends the rest of his life in America, marrying a beautiful woman while living there. After living many years in America, Amir gets called back to his hometown to salvage what he could of his past...

This book is intended for the teenage/young adult audience. This is clearly shown by the content, language used, and length. The content of this book revolves around some very messed up incidents in two children’s lives, things that, if someone younger than (about) highschool age would be horrible traumatized to read. The language is clear and well put together, and lacks (thankfully) redundancy. For example:

“A look of disgust swept across his rain-soaked face. It was the same look he’d given me when, as a kid, I’d fall, scrape my knees, and cry. It was the crying that brought it on then, the crying that brought it on now.” (157)

I particularly liked this scene because of the vivid detail that doesn’t use too many words to convey. It shows pain, a bleary depressing background, and a relationship, all in just two sentences. It amazes me how well authors are able to put their thoughts together like this. I must say I’m jealous. There are other, probably better examples of Hosseini’s interesting writing style. For one thing, the book is in first person, a risky way to write because you can’t have a character know too much before things happen, also because of his mixed use of Afghani and English in the dialogue. The use of mixed languages provides an intimacy to the book, I suppose it makes it seems more like you are in the book when reading it.The length of this book is also an indicator. It is not often that I see children younger than at least middle school age reading books this long. It’s a sorry truth that our younger generations don’t read books much longer than about 300 pages because they simply don’t want to focus on it that long. Because of this fact, something as simple as the length of this book indicates that it’s intended audience is teenagers and young adults.

Though I greatly enjoyed this book, I felt it had just a couple weaknesses. In all honesty, I felt that the conflict with Assef is left unresolved. Sure, Sohrab and Amir triumph in one battle, but the war was not yet won.

“The whole world rocking up and down, swooping side to side, I hobbled down the steps leaning on Sohrab. From above Assef’s screams went on and on, the cries of a wounded animal” (291)

“The screams went on and on, the cries of a wounded animal” This is a perfect example of how they did not conquer the problem of Assef. They wounded him badly and escaped his wrath, but they didn’t find a way of removing him from the back of their minds for a good long time. I’m not saying they should kill him (though after what he’s done...) but the author should have at least found a way of getting rid of him forever. With this things he’s done, Assef would be given twenty life sentences and the death penalty. Am I the only one with the feeling that there’s something missing at this point in the plot? Sure, Amir reaches his goal. Sure, Sohrab escapes. But we never deal with Assef, who brought the original issue from the beginning. From the point where conflict began in this book, the story branches, intertwining with other segments from time to time, but still branching enough for there to be clear subplots and subtext. The Assef subplot (from now on referred to as “Subplot A”) has a beginning, a middle, and no end. Where there should have been an end to Subplot A, there was an intersection between the main plot and the subplot, perfectly reasonable, if the subplot had been resolved there, instead of standing still for the rest of the book, making us wonder if Assef would show up again, patched up and thirsty for blood at any moment. So overall, the subplot needs a bit of work, and this is my main issue with this book, my only complaint.

In conclusion, though I loved this book, I also had issues with it (love-hate relationship, no?). But many pros and cons of this book that were unmentioned were born of the literature group discussions held during class time and I feel that I should have branched out my own writing more into those subjects. Controversy was a popular part of any discussion, as it is in general life. Whether this is a good guy or a bad guy, if he’ll help or hinder, whose fault it was that something-or-other happened, etc. These were just a few subjects in need of recognition that not touched upon in this piece. I fear I’m rambling, repeating myself time-and-time again as I try desperately to convey how important it is to realize it’s not just my opinion that matters, nor even yours. It is the opinion of the masses that will win this battle of controversy in the end.