This Tuesday we'll be wrapping up our discussion of The Book of Khalid before moving on to the second generation of Arab-American writers.
There are three things I'd like to see you comment on here.
First, what do you now believe to be the narrator's opinion of Khalid? How does that affect your interpretation of the novel's meaning?
Second, and perhaps related to the first question, is the notion of "immanent morality" that Khalid mentions briefly at the end of book one and a few times again at the begining of book two. What, in your opinion, is "immanent morality"? Does it reflect any "shades of Whitman?
Third, I'm curious to know what you think of Khalid's leaving America. Did he leave because he failed? Does his failure, if you see it as that, mean that the Arab-American "super-man" proposed by the Fatihah is impossible?
I still don't think the narrator is making fun of Khalid. It doesn't make sense to me that this person would go on a quest to find the truth about Khalid simply to make fun of him. I think the narrator is presenting both the negative and positive aspects of what he discovers, and because Khalid has so much internal conflict, it makes sense that sometimes the narrator would take a tone of irony or even superiority. But I don't see mocking.
I'm having a bit of trouble with the idea of immanent morrality and how it relates to Whitman. Hopefully I will understand it more after discussion tomorrow.
Khalid didn't fail in America. He feels a natural longing for the place he was born and raised. That doesn't equal failure; it equals nostalgia. Maybe he wasn't as successful as he hoped to be, but then again maybe Shakib was successful enough for the both of them. Shakib certainly hasn't failed, and yet he returns to Lebanon with his friend. Their leaving America is about homecoming, not fleeing from failure.