| Summary: | In this paper, we analyse John Updike’s Terrorist (2006) and Mohammad Ismail’s Desert
of Death and Peace (2005) with the aim of examining the use of allusion in the depiction
of 9/11 acts and the US occupation of Iraq. The comparison of the two novels, selected
from two different literary traditions, enables us to explore American and Arab
viewpoints of recent history. By appropriating the discussions of Gerard Genette,
Michael Leddy, William Irwin, John Campbell and Allan Pasco on the use of allusion in
literature, we argue that when authors allude to history in their works, they either employ
allusion to affirm or oppose certain notions. In other words, there are two main strategies
of allusion: affirmation and opposition. Updike alludes to history to affirm that Arab
terrorists are the main enemies of the USA and also to oppose the actions of those
terrorists who give themselves the right to kill civilians. In contrast, Ismail asserts that the
Iraqi and American people are equally victims of super-power Jews. Therefore, he
exposes an opposition to the US occupation of Iraq and the irrational reaction of the US
to 9/11. Both novels implicitly utilise 9/11 and the US occupation of Iraq but each one
employs these incidents according to the viewpoint and cultural background of its author.
Hence, the different employment of history reveals contestations of worldviews which
are symptomatic of the ideological clashes between the East and West.
|
|---|