Kite Runner Debate thread

[Shawonkey]

Re: Your Favorite Books

~sighs~ What can I say -- I gave my explanations Several times, in fact, lol.
I still find it funny and amusing that so many judgments are made so soon.

Still, I asked some questions which are still unanswered -- and so I'm still waiting, just in case someone can answer...
Manana.

I posted a few claims and merely responded to them.

Oh well, my stance is clear, Nice talking to you.

I will spectate and watch you and the other dude go at it, and if I feel as though it is absolutely necessary I will jump back in.

[Roshina]

Re: Kite Runner Debate thread

Before I get back into the discussion, let me share a few things about the pivotal role that novels (and stories in general) play in constructing and re-constructing a universal view about a people.

It is commonly known that the average reader will take each character as a *representative* of an entire group of people – a race, possibly; a people belonging to one same faith, maybe – and so when the author is writing, she/he should be careful. But what about when they’re telling the story of a particular people? Should authors STLL be careful? Sure. Are they obligated to? Not at all.

You see, there are ways to be careful when you’re telling a story. For instance, you could make your focal character whoever you want, but try to make sure that you have another character of *the same race and/or creed* so that your readers don’t end up making generalizations about your characters, so that your readers don’t go, “Ohhh! Since Character A, the main character, was an Egyptian and he disrespected his wife, all Egyptian men must be like that.” Or “Ohhh! Since Character A was Muslim and he was an alcoholic EVEN THOUGH he prayed 5 times a day, all Muslims are hypocrites.”

What you CAN do (I won’t say “should”) is, construct your story in a way that you will have more than one character who belong to the same race/belief system. So, you have this one Egyptian character who’s Muslim, give another Egyptian Muslim who’s NOT a hypocrite; give a Muslim of ANOTHER background who’s also an alcoholic; give a non-Muslim who’s also an alcoholic (or a hypocrite in other ways).

BUT! Doing that will mean stuffing your stories with so many characters that your readers can’t keep up with it and constantly have to go back to remember who’s who. But why burden yourself with such an arduous (and maybe even an unnecessary) task? Why feel obligated to have that many characters just because you’re afraid of the response you will receive from people? What if your novel is based on a true story (or many true stories) and you want to tell only that, while embellishing it with some fictitious characters, thoughts, scenarios, etc. Remember: This is *your* novel; no one else gets a say in it.

Anyway, so, you could also make sure that you tell your story in such a way that the reader will never be able to make any assumptions about YOU, the story teller. Give only one character of each faith/race, as you wish, but don’t make any judgments yourself; don’t allow your characters to make judgment – no, wait, that’s inevitable; you HAVE to do that … but you can do it by having one character say A and another character saying – A. Your doing this won’t expose your judgmental side to your reader.

But again! Why do you have to do that? Why is it that you feel like you HAVE to provide a “perfectly accurate representation” of the races and religions of all the characters you include in your book? Sure, it’s great for English assignments when your readers have to read your book for a class and then write some analysis paper on it.
For instance, if one of your character rapes another character of the same gender in your story, why does the whole world have to assume that ALL of the people who belong the race of the former are like that? But this reminds us of why the whole world views Muslims as terrorists because of the actions of a few. Alas, we seem to do this everywhere, in every case, be it books or movies or current affairs.

I cannot at the moment, but in my next post, I will try to connect this post of mine to The Kite Runner ; that will explain why I said this and why it’s relevant to what I’m going to say next.

[Pukhtoon007]

Re: Kite Runner Debate thread

guys when the danish cartoons came out under the banner of freedom of speech, the Muslims went wild started burning n destroying everything in sight with their fatwas, and all the danish had to do was look in the camera n go "i told u so" these guys are uncivilised hooligans. this goes for this guys book respond intellectuali or somthing.

n hu was is that used the swearword. pf is like our cyber home, how many times do u hear those words in ur house i dnt maybe u do , hu ever used it i hope its never used again.
persian girl qratu is not supporting u , she is supporting the guys method not his message. well thats how i see it so far correct me if im wrong.

the book is khaled hossienis perception of pukhtoons, most of it is proli not even his personal experience. n qratu maybe ur love for ur afghanistani friends is clouding ur judgment. helping u sympathise with the victims of the book.

the rape scene, i see a little different , the guy that raped the hazara kid was half german half pukhtoon n somewhere in the book he gave the main character a book about hitler. rape is commited usuali to feel powerful or superior to the victim. i the messege i get is that pushtuns think they are the perfect powerful n superior race in afghanistan. lol but im an idiot.

[Dinosaur Khan]

Re: Kite Runner Debate thread

I have watched the last 40 or 50 mins of film made on novel. Depiction of talibans was exaggarated. The talib guy was shown that he has made hazara boy as prostitute. It is wrong because talibans were the one who seriously tried to eliminate widely practiced bachabazi in afghanistan.

[Pukhtoon007]

Re: Kite Runner Debate thread

i agree with u there

[*Mahzala*]

Re: Kite Runner Debate thread

i agree with u there

A memorable moment for PF (and CK!). Khalko, teega warhawey! :D

[Shayesta]

@Qrratugai

The much I enjoy reading your posts and mostly agree to it as well, I do have something to tell this time. My problem with Khaled Hoesseini isn't his novel, not at all in fact. When I read the book or saw the film, I didn't think of his views about Pukhtoons in particular; I just saw the film as an Afghan, which is about Afghanistan. My problem with him was he only showed flaws of Pukhtoons even though nearly of half of Kabul inhabitants have been associated with us Pukhtoons because of our hospitality mainly. My problem with this writer arise when I read his second novel, A Thousand Splendid Suns. Even there Pukhtoons were pictured as complete monsters. On one hand we were pictured as people with fake Pukhtoon pride feeling superior over others, but on other hand all these Pukhtoons interacting with Tajiks and even speaking Dari; Exactly same was case with The Kite Runner. At least that idiot should have brought Pukhto in his film if he loves to write about us oh-so much, don't you think?

And moreover, Khaled Hoesseini as an Afghan should know how sensitive Pukhtoon-Tajik issue is in Afghanistan, how did he dare in this case raise this issue twice? I have heard many anti-Pukhtoon Afghans say that both books describe true colours of Pukhtoons, but those very same people made a elephant out of a mouse when Pukhtoons in politics refused to rename Pohantoon as Daneshgah in Dari speaking areas in Afghanistan. If they have the right to make such a big issue out of such a small one, then why shouldn't we feel offended to such a image which is shown about us to entire world? And if we didn't respect Tajik's then we wouldn't have allowed their areas flourish this much and nor would we have allowed their language to be the dominant language in our country.

And as someone here mentioned a bit, Khaled Hoesseini is same Khorasani idiot and trust me when I tell you that Khorasani's are simply AMAZING at lying and brainwashing. Note that I am not talking about entire Tajik nation, but those who support Khorasan movement and that number surely is huge. I think we Pukhtoons in fact behaved perfectly fine. This is fiction but yet we were pictured as monsters and some Tajiks on Payam TV were saying Pukhtoons shouldn't exaggerate and just relax, but when Bachi Bazi in Tajik areas was shown on TV then these very same Tajiks couldn't stop ringing the studio and kept saying the presenter is trying to put a bad image of certain ethnic of Afghans, LOL. You tell me, how shall I think of understanding these people while they don't even understand themselves? And apparently even Americans are interested in 'researching' about homosexuality amongst Pukhtoons instead of stating facts about Bacha Bazi, so obviously America will love that film! Have you by the way read his second book? If yes then you still would say it's just his opinion? Is his opinion, mind, heart and life set on Pukhtoons only?

[Roshina]

Only Shayesta proves that she has read the book.
Only SHAYESTA answers my questions!
Thank you, khorey; that’s exactly what I wanted to know. Specific details. I wanted to see who’s read the book and who hasn’t. I see not many of us have read it but depend way too much on what others have told us. When will learn that each reader is going to get out a different thing from the EXACT same book they read, the EXACT same experience they go through?

[Roshina]

Depiction of talibans was exaggarated.

I disagree that the description of the Taliban was exaggerated. Try saying that to those who have witnessed their reign, both in Afghanistan and Pashtunkhwa.

I read this book last year during the time my mom was in Swat (that was with the war and all). And each time we'd talk to her on the phone, we'd ask her how things are, what the Taliban are doing (we know we shouldn't trust the media; they don't tell the whole story, if a truthful one at all), what the soldiers and "security" forces were doing -- basically, what was going on in front of her own eyes. And it felt like almost EVERYTHING she was telling us was EXACTLY what I was reading in The Kite Runner, if not worse. In fact, I think The Kite Runner didn't do enough justice to the Taliban: they are far more beastly than our minds can ever conceive, and the author didn't show that well enough.

So, no, I don't think he exaggerated the Taliban's actions at all. (But I haven't watched the movie, so I can't say how the Taliban in the movie are.)

The talib guy was shown that he has made hazara boy as prostitute. It is wrong because talibans were the one who seriously tried to eliminate widely practiced bachabazi in afghanistan.

Khorey, don't think that just because the Taliban APPEAR to be against something, they REALLY are Did you know that the daughters of Muslim Khan, one of the current leaders of the Taliban in Swat, not only had a say in their marriages (they actually had a marriage of choice), but they also received some excellent quality education? AND that he lives in a mansion and has a television and everything else that he and his friend Mullah Fazlullah preached to the Swatis is haraam?

The Taliban don't allow the appearance of women in public, but they will WILLINGLY touch them the first chance they get, claiming, "It's because they're out in public when Islam doesn't allow them to be!" And by "touch," I don't mean anything gentle or "Islamic."

[Roshina]

^
Make sure you read the link from Larawbar which has people with PHD degrees discussing the matter.
I shall wait for your response.

I read it, and my response is here (it's a response to your "friend," to you, and to everyone else who think things like “homosexuality is haraam in Islam, and Pashtuns are Muslims! So Pashtuns can't possibly be homosexuals!" In fact, quoting you, Bro GoPashtunGo:

How is that not specific enough? Pashtuns are 99.9 percent Muslim, Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, he portrayed us in a way that we rape kids when we have spare time, Get the logic?

Are you trying to say that Muslims can't be homosexuals, or that there are no Muslim homosexuals in the world? Because guess what -- there do. In the Arab world (it's filled with them, actually, mostly because of the strict codes of communication between males and female), there are MANY among Pashtuns (it's becoming more and more common in Swat, I've heard from friends in Swat, that elderly men have a *young, little boy* as their "partner"!), and so on.

Just a few posts before, you were laughing saying no one can point you to a source and all I read was you whining when everyone here has pretty much touched on the main points while you have yet to refute and offer a proper coherent rebuttal.

I'm still saying this; no one has STILL *proven* Hosseini wrong. I say this because of some previous points I made, including:
~ Does the author's job HAVE to be "developing Pashtun thought"? Rather, is it his job to develop ANY race's thought at all?
~ Look around -- I can cite thousands of racist remarks on this board, so WE obviously have NO problem accepting stereotypes against other people, but when OTHER people accept stereotypes against *us*, we get all fired up.
(And I consider this VERY important, this whole thinking that "others can't say anything bad about us, but we can badmouth ANYONE we want!" So expect it to appear in many other future posts of mine as well.)
~ I *want* someone to convince me that what Hosseini did was *wrong* and *unfair*.
~ It was Hosseini's impression of Pukhtuns; he "universalized" it by publishing a book in which he didn't portray Pukhtuns so positively. Still, it wasn't just his view; it was fueled by SOMETHING. We disagree with it, that's perfectly fine, but let's SHOW that we disagree by *creating* a book that's even better than his.

Also, it seems to me that you think I disagree with the Danish Cartoonish but not with Hosseini, even though both used their right to free speech/expression.

May I ask how you made that conclusion? Because as far as *I* am concerned, I said that *the response of Muslims to the Cartoons was absolutely unacceptable, ridiculous, and humiliating*.

And I repeat with my question of OUR (Pashtuns') response to Hosseini: What have we done about it? Who's willing to better represent Pashtuns in the literary world?

The fact that his message was, "He was a Pashtun, And I am Hazara and nothing can ever change that" and, him being raped, and Hosseini showing us like bullies who will take your lunch money, is unacceptable

I will be addressing this point in my analysis of the characters of The Kite Runner (in response to your "friend's" analysis.)

Thanks. You might be my student one day, you never know.

Sure, I guess. That would be a good experience; if ever possible, I look forward to it!
What do you teach?

[Roshina]

When I asked for "specific" details (and Shayesta replied, bless her soul!), I meant specific points against Pashtuns. They'd include:

~ Amir’s father, a Pashtun, has an illegitimate son

~ Assef, a Pashtun gangster, rapes Hasan while Amir watches silently, and Pashtuns are known to be loyal friends who do not act cowardly

~ The Hazaras are humiliated, harassed, and even massacred by Pashtuns

~ Amir’s wife is a former mateeza, the Pashto term exclusively crafted for women who choose their lovers over their families

~ The Pashtuns in the story speak in Farsi instead of Pashto, which shows that they have no respect or concern for their native tongue.

However, these may be viewed as exceptions to the ways of the Pashtuns in general. It is not impossible – only disgraceful – that a Pashtun man have children outside his marriage, or that a Pashtun girl be (intimately) involved with someone before or outside of marriage. As Soraya (Amir's wife) tells Amir, boys can do whatever they want, even sleep around, and everyone can know about it, but no one condemns them for it; only females are penalized and considered dishonorable when they do something “bad.” This is a fact about us as well as many other Muslim societies, but few admit it openly. We Pashtuns seem to be a bit too exceedingly intolerant towards any negative side of us that is shown to the world; we see it as an attack on our culture, no matter how accurate it may be sometimes, and feel the need to respond even violently in order to silence those who initiate it.

As I said before, why are we not focusing also on the *good* things that the author points out about Pukhtuns? Do we SERIOUSLY expect to be portrayed as gracious, noble, kind, tolerant people (especially when many of us ourselves think so lowly of many other races and particularly by those who are not Pashtuns to begin with)? Now, why would we expect such a thing?

[Roshina]

The Kite Runner analysis - Part 1

In response to the brother "Dr. Rahmat" who wrote the article "Pashtun-Bashing in The Kite Runner: A Psychological Operation," I have the following to say ... and many apologies in advance for the excruciating length(s) of my response(s), guys!

So, Dr. Rahmat says much of what everyone else has been saying or will ever say about The Kite Runner. For reference and convenience, the link to the article is: http://www.larawbar.com/detail.php?id=14649.

See, he names the major characters, describes them, and gives their qualities/personalities and weaknesses. However, he leaves out their strength and the “positives” that their characters could reveal about Pukhtuns. He highlights the negatives of the Pukhtuns and the positives of other races, while completely neglecting the positives of the Pashtuns and the negatives of the others! Why?

He says, for instance: “Hassan’s mother is ethnic Hazara.”
But he doesn’t add this very important fact about her:
She is a run-away; she is accused of having hated her son when he was born because she didn’t like the way he looked.

Here’s what I have to say about Hassan’s mother:
~ a “mateeza,” as we’d call her in Pashto, a promiscuous young woman who left her husband. We’re even told that, according to people in the community, she even refused to hold her own baby son right after he was born!

But when we're analyzing her, is it fair to assume that all Hazara women are like this? Would it be true? How have Hazara people’s response to this portrayal of their women? How HAVE they so far responded to this?

Let’s analyze the other characters. I will include some of Dr. Rahmat’s comments as well to make a point.

~ Amir, Pashtun, is a coward (never standing up for his “best friend”; his father, a Pashtun, scolds him for being a coward – since Pashtuns are not supposed to act cowardly.

Analysis: What does this mean? Cowardly son, brave father? And both are Pashtuns.
Dr. Rahmat tells us that “Baba wishes Amir would stand up for himself.” Yes, exactly. Amir is a child, and he happens to be a weak child. Are all Pashtun children weak, or are all strong? Or does it depend? What about their fathers? Are all their fathers “brave” and stand up for themselves always?

~ Amir’s father is rich in thinking: he is intelligent enough to form his own sense of thought about many things, including considering “stealing as the only form of sin” there is. And his reasoning! My God! One would have to be brilliant to think like that! And his son envies him, wishing he was like his father.

Analysis: Why do we forget this fact about Baba when we’re condemning this story? What percentage of the Pashtun population does Amir’s father represent? – opposing the Taliban, not being afraid to form his own sense of beliefs/thoughts, giving his son advice that we don’t commonly see fathers giving anymore, and so on?

~ The guilt of not saving his “best friend” from the beasts haunts Amir for the rest of his life, and even long after he provides a home for the child of “his best friend,” he knows that he hasn’t compensated for anything at all – he still owes a great deal to him for not being there for him on the day both of their lives changed forever.

Analysis: This is supposed to define his sense of humanity. He could have chosen NOT to feel guilty about it; he could’ve chosen NOT to adopt Hasan’s son – but he did.)

~ Hasan is Amir’s servant, and Amir is absolutely merciless to him at times. Heck, he won't even teach him how to read. (okay, I might be asking for too much when I say this. Really, HOW many of us teach our servants, or anyone below us, how to read/write?)

Analysis: HONESTLY speaking, how does the typical rich person treat the poor people in her/his neighborhood, or people in general? How do we typically treat our servants? Are people here REALLY surprised that a rich kid abused someone of a lower social status than he?

Also, can the Hazaras argue that “hey, hey, Hosseini portrayed all Hazaras as weak people who are dominated and abused by others!!! That’s not true! We can stand up for ourselves, you know!!”?
If they do say that, what would our response be in return?

~ Rahim Khan, a Pashtun, is very supportive of Amir’s writing and is like a father to him.
Dr. Rahmat writes: “He [Rahim] is business associate and close friend of Baba. He has a close relationship with Amir, who wishes Rahim Khan was his father. “There is a way to be good again.” This is said by Rahim Khan to Amir to encourage him to help Hassan’s orphan son Sohrab escape Afghanistan under Taleban and this way redeem himself.”

Analysis: What can Rahim's personality tell the reader about Pashtuns in general? SHOULD it tell anything at all? Why don’t we take Rahim to be a representative of Pashtuns instead of the man who has an illegitimate child?

~ Dr. Rahmat says of Assef:
“Assef is ethnic Pashtun. He has blue eyes and blond hair because his mother is German. He is an antagonist, the neighborhood bully, and firm believer in Adolf Hitler’s leadership. He raped Hassan. Assef, who later becomes leader of Taleban, took Sohrab (son of Hassan) from the orphanage in Kabul and forced him to prostitution. Eventually Amir adopted his half nephew Sohrab.”

Analysis: Assef is a typical bully, found in every corner of the world. (Yes, his raping a male is not typical in EVERY society, but the rest of his attitude is.) Are we denying the existence of people like Assef in our existence? 'Cause, sorry to break it to you, but they are/were in MY areas. I come from a village – and it seems like each village I went to had an Assef! The average Pashtun doesn’t come from a rich and well-developed, highly-educated community where everyone knows how to behave, and no one abuses another person.

[Roshina]

The Kite Runner Analysis - Part 2

One thing I noted in Dr. Rahmat’s analysis is that he opposes the view that Afghanistan is smothering from racial tension. Seriously?! (And, yet, as I'm about to say in a second, he contradicts himself here when he later says that Hazaras have always suffered from prejudice in Afghanistan.)

He reminds me of when non-Pashtuns say, “Pashtuns are in PERFECT shape in Pakistan. We’re not harming them, we love them, Pakistan loves them, they have equal access to everything in Pakistan; they have decent jobs” etc., etc.
That’s exactly what Rahmat Bro is doing in his analysis. And it’s not true.

At times, his post is unclear because I’m not sure if he’s standing up against the history that’s narrated in The Kite Runner, or if he’s just talking in general. For instance, he says:
“President Bush declared war, and U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. Even eight months after that doleful October day, the FBI director Mueller was unable to identify the person responsible for the 911 horrific attacks on America. According to Prof. Chomsky, “The most” the FBI director could deliver was to “believe” that the idea of the plot might have emerged in Afghanistan, but its planning and implementation were done in United Arab Emirates and Germany. Yet, Afghanistan was invaded by the U.S. forces, and to the contrary United Arab Emirates and Germany were exempted from the U.S. military attack!?”

So, yeah.

Then he cites Hosseini’s legal note, which reads:

“This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, business establishments, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.”

To which Dr. Rahmat says:
“His Afghan background tells us that using real names of the real Afghan ethnic groups (Pashtuns and Hazaras) is neither the “product” of his “imagination” nor is their “resemblance…entirely coincidental.”

Obviously, that’s his understanding of "fictitious characters and stories." But my understanding of the note is:
If you know an Assef in real life who is Pashtun by ethnicity and is from the area(s) mentioned in the book, it’s NOT the same one the author has talk about in his book; it’s a coincidence that that happened.

Generally, this is what they mean when they say this. :S Dr. Rahmat seems to get another meaning of it. I mean, ALL fiction books/stories have SOME truth in them; they're based on SOME real facts -- it's only that the author might either twist them, exaggerate them, or use them only a little in stuff he makes up to make his story more realistic.

In fact, oftentimes, a drama/movie will say, before starting, “Based on a true story.” And then a few seconds later: “These characters are fictitious.” I remember once laughing at this and asking my mom, “What? How can a drama be based on a TRUE story but have fictitious characters?” And she explained that it just means these characters aren’t necessarily the ones to whom this happened, or the names used in there are not necessarily the real ones of the people the movie/drama aims to highlight.”

Anyway, then Dr. Rahmat says:
”This method is based on a hidden agenda for blaming the Pashtuns (the majority of Afghanistan’s population) of oppressing the minorities (non-Pashtun ethnic groups).”

Again, is he implying Pashtuns don’t mistreat the Hazaras in Afghanistan? (It’s another thing, however, if he’s arguing that “Pashtuns might oppress the Hazaras, but the Hazaras aren’t angels either! They, too, attack Pashtuns every chance they get!” In that case, I’d agree; otherwise, no.)

BUT!! Interestingly, he contradicts himself by saying:

“Unfortunately, Hazaras have long suffered from discrimination in Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation the term “nationality” was propagated among the Afghan minorities(non-Pashtun tribes). Discrimination is unfair because it ignores the individual merit. In Afghanistan it resulted from different political, social and cultural interests of the elite crossing through all major non-Hazara ethnic and religious groups, not the masses of the people.”

(It SEEMS like he's claiming that Pashtuns have never harmed the Hazaras, and I completely disagree. Hazaras would disagree as well.)

YET!! Somehow, he then goes on to argue that, no, they’re not discriminated against at all by outlining examples of some Hazaras who were treated very well, including Prof. Abdul Wahab Sorabi, Kateb Faiz Mohammad, and Safya.

Confusing much, ka sanga?

And then he elaborates on how Pashtuns are stereotyped in the book. These points, I’ve already addressed in my discussion of the characters.

[Roshina]

Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, If you are believer you will concur here. Simple as that, so what is it going to be?

What? This isn't about what ISLAM says; it's about what we do *in reality*. Homosexuality may be haraam, but that doesn't mean there don't exist any Muslim homosexuals. You might believe that their practices make them non-Muslims, but that, too, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Such an excessive amount of EDUCATED people have went against him, How can someone "Prove" someone wrong,

Bro, don't feel like you HAVE to agree or disagree with people, no matter how educated they might be. Just because someone holds a PhD doesn't mean you should always agree with them; it certainly doesn't mean *others* should always agree with them.

Just because an "excessive about of education people" have denounced this book doesn't mean everyone else should, too.

Because of the way you have portrayed yourself, You are defending someone who has demonized us, in such a way that the non-Afghans are even worried what kind of Jungle type barbaric people we are, Quite obviously you are not rational enough to realize this.

LOL. I can imagine how irked you must be to hear that a Pashtun believes that what Hosseini did can be perfectly justified, but that doesn't make the view an irrational one, lol. But it's coming from you (someone who obviously hasn't read the book himself (yet?) and is saying that "an excessive amount of education people" are against Hosseini, implying that they're right in doing so, and those who aren't disturbed by it are wrong. So what can I say, other than that, obviously, what you consider rational and what I consider rational are very different. And that's PERFECTLY okay with me; I don't see why it should be a problem for you.

I will teach you anything you want.

Sorry, wror, but I change my mind now; your responses have not been fruitful at all so far, and all you can muster up is that "an excessive amount of educated people" said Hosseini is wrong, so he MUST be wrong? C'mon now...

However, we're all students and teachers. ALL of us are. And this forum is a great medium for us to teach and learn, so we have our chances to teach each other anything we can.

[Roshina]

The simple common sense fact which is not realised by the forum members is that in the world of academia mere disliking is not enough. It is considered as non academic approach to academic issues.This writer of the Kite Runner or any other book might have written a biased book however the right approach to condemn or to show your displeasure is that Pashtuns should also write a book of the same calibre or may be better than that.

Showing resentment is exactly the same type of behaviour which we witness from some of our members while responding to certain threads which are against thought or domain of knowledge. Do Afghans have the intellectual guts to write a best seller which could compete the Kite Runner?

Another point worth noting is that the real sincere person is the one who criticises you genuinely not the one who appreciates you fakely.The author might have written the book with malintentions however a wise and mature approach is to note what type of wrong image is being projected and whether it is based on truth or fiction. If its truth then we need to think over it and find out the causes and if it is wrong a lie then we need to counter it using the same medium,that is,writing a book of that calibre not by just rantings.

As a stage drama of school standard cannot compete a movie of Hollywood similarly Kite Runner cannot be refuted or criticised by writing an article. It has to be counteracted by writing a book if its calibre.

OMG!!!! SOMEONE understood my point! YYYYESS!! God bless you, bro!!! And you said it so much better than I tried saying it :D :D :D Thank you so much; you've done me, and hopefully the other members, a great favor!