Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Submission: A Novel
The Submission: A Novel
The Submission: A Novel
Ebook419 pages7 hours

The Submission: A Novel

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Entertainment Weekly's Favorite Novel of 2011

Esquire's 2011 Book of the Year
A New York Times Notable Book for 2011
A Washington Post Notable Fiction Book for 2011
One of NPR's 10 Best Novels of 2011

Ten years after 9/11, a dazzling, kaleidoscopic novel reimagines its aftermath

A jury gathers in Manhattan to select a memorial for the victims of a devastating terrorist attack. Their fraught deliberations complete, the jurors open the envelope containing the anonymous winner's name—and discover he is an American Muslim. Instantly they are cast into roiling debate about the claims of grief, the ambiguities of art, and the meaning of Islam. Their conflicted response is only a preamble to the country's.

The memorial's designer is an enigmatic, ambitious architect named Mohammad Khan. His fiercest defender on the jury is its sole widow, the self-possessed and mediagenic Claire Burwell. But when the news of his selection leaks to the press, she finds herself under pressure from outraged family members and in collision with hungry journalists, wary activists, opportunistic politicians, fellow jurors, and Khan himself—as unknowable as he is gifted. In the fight for both advantage and their ideals, all will bring the emotional weight of their own histories to bear on the urgent question of how to remember, and understand, a national tragedy.

In this deeply humane novel, the breadth of Amy Waldman's cast of characters is matched by her startling ability to conjure their perspectives. A striking portrait of a fractured city striving to make itself whole, The Submission is a piercing and resonant novel by an important new talent.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateAug 16, 2011
ISBN9781429958288
The Submission: A Novel
Author

Amy Waldman

AMY WALDMAN was co-chief of the South Asia bureau of The New York Times and a national correspondent for The Atlantic. She has been a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and at the American Academy in Berlin. Her fiction has appeared in the Boston Review and is anthologized in The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2010. She was born in Los Angeles, studied English at Yale, and now lives in Brooklyn, New York. Follow her on Twitter @amywaldman and become a fan on Facebook.

Related to The Submission

Related ebooks

Literary Fiction For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for The Submission

Rating: 3.9130434782608696 out of 5 stars
4/5

46 ratings62 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    The book is a best seller in Europe, and I heard enough to be interested. However, it wasn't what I thought it would be, and was disappointing. The main character is an university scholar, who is stand-offish and critical, un-involved in life, and more than a bit of a bore. As the Muslims take power in France, the schools become pro-Muslim, and women can't attend past high school, must wear veils, etc. Very little of this is explored, as the main character's use of prostitutes satisfies his baser needs, and the Jewish woman he had contact leaves France to escape the Muslim rule. Eventually he is dismissed from the University and given a very generous pension, in part because he isn't Muslim. His parents die, and he is largely unmoved. Eventually he is offered a position, but he must convert to Islam to accept it. That is his submission. Again, he is un-involved and passionless in his thoughts and actions. And happy that as a Muslim he will eventually have a child-bride to marry, a prominent position, and sufficient money. By the end of the book, I was uninterested in the characters, and un-involved with the plodding plot. Unlike some of the other reviewers who enjoyed the book, I thought the emphasis on Joris-Karl Huysmans (a 19th century French author) tiresome and pretentious. Not worth the cost of the book.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    So France and the Intellectuals of the Sorbonne give in to Islam with a whimper and submit to keep their university jobs and, who knows, the possibility of poligamy.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Having heard only the hype about Houellebecq I wasn't prepared to find Submission to be such a funny and erudite book. I am not sure how you can call this book a polemic. Which side is Houellebecq on? None that I can see. The demographic powered Muslim takeover of France and Europe the book posits is more thought-provoking and ironic than sinister and frightening. Mohammed Ben Abbes, the fictional muslim president, is interest less in Sharia law than in reviving the Roman Empire. France gets to keep its booze and escorts but loses its free education and welfare state, which ruffles the least amount of feathers. Houellebecq is a brilliant intellectual clown, utterly fearless and with impeccable timing. Funny that contemporary France should produce literature's greatest living autodidact. Maybe there is hope for us all yet.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Houellebecq imagines a future where the charming, intelligent and charismatic leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Ben Abbas, is able to gain the Presidency through a deal with UPM and the Socialists to keep the National Front out of power. In Houellebecq's 2022, mainstream political parties don't stand for anything or appeal to anyone. It is only the National Front and the Muslim Brotherhood .. which do at least stand for something... that can attract any support. The entirely reasonable Brotherhood only make one real demand - to reform the education system. All teachers must convert to Islam, and teaching to be undertaken under Islamic auspices. For Francois, Houllebecq's empty, purposeless and soulless academic narrator, this means the end of his teaching career, something that causes him no great upset, other than to cut off the supply of second year students as potential girlfriends / mistresses. Francois has spent most of his adult in contemplation of Huysmans, a minor 19th century writer. He is an expert on Huysmans, but on little else. Francois is a perfect example of lonely, atomised, individualist, decadent Western culture. He is the symptom of what Houellebecq sees as the decline of Western civilisation. He has few relationships - his mother and father die without him seeming to notice, literally in the case of his mother. His dealings with women consist of either preying on star struck students, or making appointments with escorts, but he is jaded even with thisBy contrasts, his colleagues who convert to Islam to retain their jobs, are rewarded with large pay increases, and the dubious charms of polygamy. For someone like Francois who, like his beloved Huysmans, is really only interested in women as whores or cooks, this all looks quite appealing and slowly he is drawn towards submissionYou can't deny that the book is well written, at times pretty funny, and that some of the scenarios that he puts forward don't require too much suspension of disbelief. They are possible, if not probable or likely. And yet there is something ultimately unsatisfying about it. The idea that consumer culture and individualism have reached the end of their cultural cycle, and that people are being increasingly pulled to some form of belief, has some currency. But it seems to me that Houellebecq seemed to be suggesting that men will ultimately be happy with any system or form of belief, that facilitates their continuing domination of women. Indeed Francois himself suggests, early in the book, that historically weakening the primacy of the male has been a bad idea - an idea that has his girlfriend Myriam, stomping out of the house - and later, the Muslim convert who runs the University expresses the idea that you can't really change men, but you can teach women to believe in anything as they are more intellectually "supple"Overall an interesting book, that I read in one session, with some provocative ideas, that I mostly disagree with and indeed find barren and disagreeable. But interesting
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Is one allowed to appreciate Houellebecq? I do, and not only for the shades of Huysmans in this one. This is not only scary - it's credible.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Submission: A Novel by Michel Houellebecq was published in France to much controversy. It ironically was the day that the radical jihadists murdered the writers at Charlie Hebdo. I say ironically because this novel is the story of France gradually and finally becoming Muslim. The French were shocked but I didn't find it shocking if somewhat plausible. As you had to become a Nazi in Germany if you were to get anywhere you had to become a Muslim in order to succeed in France. The antagonist by the end becomes a Muslim because he wants his job back at the Sorbonne which has become Islamic. The book was un sucess fou in France but I am not convinced it is warranted.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    A typically Houellebecq typically interesting and typically frustrating read. A man with a view, with learning and with ideas and not afraid to flaunt them all. A superficially frivolous view of a near future France becoming the centre of a European caliphate. But there's enough there for you to think 'Maybe'. And typically Houellebecqian obsessions with sex, food, drink and street addresses.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I couldn't read it in the original (I don’t speak French), so that qualifies my impression somewhat, but the English version I read was a poorly-written vehicle for (sophomoric) ideas... a second-rate Kundera with none of Kundera's learning or wit or talent for structural elegance. I cautiously read a second novel of his and then half of a third novel and my opinion of the author was not changed. I have nothing against a dour worldview... anything ranging from Palahniuk to Céline (to whom Houellebecq once bore a passing physical resemblance) to Littel to the gently-black Vonnegut can work... but Houellebecq? Bah. But Houellebecq is all set, obviously, to profit enormously from the Stupidities of this Age. Smart of him surely? Unfortunately he is not that skillful taking the piss out of people and society which is against Muslims and women. A mirror of society, showing them what they do not want to see. And now everyone "hates" the mirror. How silly. And how smart of him. Bottom-line: Too bad Houellebecq seems to be more concerned about his decrepit cock and women's tits and pussies than everything else (namely good writing). Most people take him seriously, and read him in the first degree. But he is not only twisted, he is also highly perverse. He simply recognises and writes to prejudices that people will not speak out themselves. People who are considered intellectuals are afraid of not liking his work, 'ordinary' people do not buy his books. The novel's conceit is frankly implausible, and the leading character unusually cardboardy, even for Houellebecq. Plus, he seems to have lost his sense of humour. Frankly, I fear he's lost it, and it'd be surprising if he wasn't at his age, considering the amount of fags and booze he's reportedly got through. Houellebecq is beginning to share the fate of his distant cousin, Danny Houellebecq: that of being overrated by French philosophers desperate to revive a once proud intellectual tradition. It reminds me of the adulation accorded Jean Paul Sartre - who evidently lived on amphetamine for over 25 years and also did not feel responsible to anyone but his own "truth" a truth which changed at least 5 times during his career - one wonders why in France an author can get into such a position of intellectual power - what is going on with other people's critical facilities? Maybe because the working class are ruled by the baton, the middle class are ruled by culture, and the ruling class are ruled by the fear of being either of them. I think this is intellectual power as compensation for lack of self-responsibility. This man is a jumble of compulsions clumped together by others as "chic" and "challenging." In a nutshell, I don't know what he's frigging around with, neither here or there. But I guess I don't blame him, he's a bit worried. We are witnessing the death of art. Even the irreverent South Park has been silenced. It doesn't bode well either way. When so much of the arts, indeed so much of public life, is dominated by cowardly mediocrities, all congratulating each other for challenging the injustices and social conventions of the world as it was circa 1950, it is refreshing indeed to have a genuinely nutty writer such as Mr Houellebecq. I just wish Houellebecq would be able to write anything worthwhile! Saying he's got balls is not enough. On the other hand, I believe Houellebecq's true inspiration for this novel (my interpretation) is being overlooked in many reviews: he is staging the nightmare peddled by European far right movements. He does it openly, referencing people like Renaud Camus and Bat Ye'Or. The novel is about their nightmare becoming reality, like the "Turner Diaries" were about the far right US fantasy becoming real - and I think that some reviewers are illustrating that he aimed in the right direction. He does mercilessly attack the French elite, with one glaring exception: Marine Le Pen. He actually even says that she is "beautiful", which is indeed a sign of great admiration, for a man who goes out of his way to say as often as possible, in books and interviews, that any woman beyond the age of 22 is decrepit and sexually repulsive... Wot?
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Above our heads the linden branches stirred in the breeze. Just then, in the distance, I heard a soft, muffled noise like an explosion.

    This wasn't the dystopia I had expected. Scandalous -- such was the domestic response to this alleged fragmentation grenade. Set a few years in the future, the Muslim Brotherhood in France forms a coalition and becomes ruling party -- but what exactly follows? Changes, for sure, but ones that often elude the eye. That is, however, from a man's perspective. Women appear eased into the margins, out of sight and somewhat blurred. The internet and supermarkets still maintain us, meet our needs and desires with a formal clumsiness: just like Amazon. Weather patterns feature in the novel. Maybe our trends in civilization and ontology are just as capricious. This novel is more about the life-cycle of ideas rather than Sharia or the more extreme notions: stonings, genital mutilation etc. There are always times when I read Houellebecq that I think-- wait, am I like that? H succeeds in prodding us to consider our self-deceptions and I'm truly thankful for that. This may disappoint some, but I found it to be remarkable. 4.8 stars
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    An interesting thought experiment, but maybe not such a great novel. The writing is competent, the characters closer to archetypes than people. Reminded me a bit of Jodi Picoult (although this is better). I did like the ending, and I suppose the way the book depicts American society in the aftermath of 9/11 will be interesting to future historians, but it didn't really work for me.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Das Buch „Unterwerfung“ beschreibt, wie im Jahr 2022 eine islamische Partei in Frankreich an die Regierung kommt. Ich-Erzähler François ist ein völlig ich-bezogener Literaturprofessor, der immer mehr vereinsamt. Ich hoffe mal, dass diese frustrierende frauenfeindliche Gestalt nicht das Alter Ego Houellebecqs darstellt.Ich fand das Buch großartig. Es ist ausgesprochen intelligent, ich fand es witzig und hoffe mal, dass ich es richtig verstanden habe. Aber zum Ende hin kann ich es eigentlich nur satirisch verstehen.Es funktioniert für mich auf zwei Ebenen und stellt auch diese dar. Einerseits ist da die Gesellschaft, in ihrer Angst sowohl vor der Rechten als auch vor dem Islam, andererseits aber der Hinwendung dazu. Ich glaube ja nicht, dass das Dargestellte wirklich funktionieren würde, zum Glück ist zumindest in Deutschland die Mitte am stärksten. Und auch die Frauen würden wohl protestieren, so hoffe ich zumindest. Aber im Grundsatz ist diese Vision großartig überlegt: Sowohl die Rechten als auch der radikale Islam lehnen eine offene, tolerante, letztendlich linksliberale Gesellschaft ab. Patriarchat, Inegalität, Autorität, Tradition sind die gesellschaftlichen Ideen, denen eigentlich beide Strömungen folgen. So ist der „Kampf“ zwischen beiden Strömungen zwar auf gesellschaftlicher Ebene zu erkennen, die Ziele beider Strömungen sind aber ähnlich, weshalb im Buch auch ehemalige Identitäre sich dem Islam zuwenden und konvertieren.Und hier sind wir bei der persönlichen Ebene, dargestellt an der Person François. Als Literaturprofessor ist er zwar intellektuell und philosophisch ausgesprochen beschlagen, leistet aber streng genommen kaum noch etwas. Seine Dissertation über Huysmans scheint sehr gut gewesen zu sein, seitdem hat er aber keine neuen Forschungsgebiete erschlossen. Seine Beziehungen mit jungen Studentinnen erfüllen ihn sexuell, menschlich hingegen ist er zu keinerlei Beziehung oder Regung fähig. Dass sich nun gerade dieser intellektuelle Mensch, der selbst recht unsicher und geradezu leer ist, dem aber das Elitäre von außen immer wieder bescheinigt wird, sich am Ende doch die positiven Aspekte der neuen Regierung bewusst macht, ist geradezu genial erkannt: Als (männlicher) Professor gehört er zur Elite und wird von dieser Regierung profitieren. Er wird sehr gut verdienen und seine innere Leere durch Polygamie mit sehr jungen Frauen verdrängen. Mir kam noch in den Sinn, dass das Christentum und der Humanismus eher Hingabe verlangen würden. Zur Hingabe sind François und seinesgleichen nicht fähig, also bleibt nur die Unterwerfung.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Submission. Michel Houellebecq. 2015. This book caught my attention because the main character, Francois is a literature teacher at the Sorbonne specializing in the author J. K. Huysmans, a realist who’s most famous and infamous work, A Rebours marks the beginning of gay literature. (I found Huysmans book on his conversion, En Route, on a Catholic site, it is a fascinating book.) Francois is tired of life; he teaches his classes, manages to have an affair with a student each year, eats frozen dinners or Chinese take-out. He doesn’t seem to care or be interested in anyone or anything. He is aware that it is election time in France and surprised when the Socialists join with the Moslem party and win. The Moslems are now in control and Sharia Law is enforced. Francois and all the other non Moslems lose their university positions as do other government employees. Women wear veils and men are encourage to have more than one wife. Myriam, one of Francois’ former student/girlfriends tells him she is going to Israel because her parents feel France is no longer safe for Jews. Francois is contacted by one of the Sorbonne’s new Moslem officials and is offered a heathy promotion and told his book could be republished by the prestigious Editions de Pleiade if he will convert to Islam.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    First off while it bills itself as a novel of the near future, it is in fact a polemic. There is no character development and little plot. The thoroughly repulsive POV character is a representative of a secular elite whose cultural and demographic exhaustion leads to a soft surrender to Islam to avoid the nativists/fascists/Catholics [LePen and the National Front] winning. The suicide of the West set of memes goes back to pre-WW1, as indeed is noted in the book. The hatred for native nationalism is left unexplained but is obvious to anyone who understands the meanings of Vichy and Algeria in the French secular left’s mythologies. Should be read in company with Camp of the Saints. Yet with all of this, it was well written and intelligent as opposed to just provocative.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Über kein Buch wurde 2015 mehr diskutiert. Ist es notwendig auch 2016 darüber zu reden? Ich denke, ja, da die Themen, die hier behandelt werden leider nach wie vor sehr aktuell sind.Michel Houellebecq beschreibt ein Frankreich der nahen Zukunft, das vor drastischen politischen Veränderungen steht. Das Land ist tief gespalten. Auf der einen Seite steht die rechte Front National um Marine Le Pen. Auf der anderen formiert sich die Muslimbrüderschaft mit ihrem charismatischen Anführer Mohammed Ben Abbes. Als die Rechte die Wahlen zu gewinnen droht verbünden sich die linken Parteien mit den Muslimbrüdern, nicht ahnend, dass sie damit den Untergang der westlichen Demokratie einleiten.Der Protagonist Francois, ein Houellebecq-typischer erotomaner Mittelständler mit intellektuellen Ambitionen, beobachtet diese historischen Umwälzungen von der Peripherie, unfähig handelnd einzugreifen und letztendlich nur um seine eigene Karriere besorgt.Als Frankreich zur islamischen Republik wird, ändert sich manches zum Positiven (sinkende Kriminalität), vieles zum Negativen (die Frauen verlieren ihre Rechte und werden praktisch zu Bürgern zweiter Klasse).Der Roman hat durchaus mit einigen Plausibilitätsproblemen zu kämpfen. So gelingt es Houellebecq nicht zu erklären, wieso die radikale Rechte, die eben noch den Bürgerkrieg gegen die Moslems plant sich so friedfertig mit dem Sieg der Muslimbrüder abfindet. Und ist es wirklich vorstellbar, dass sich die Frauen einfach so in ihre neue Rolle fügen? Nimmt man das ganze allerdings als Realsatire, ist es schon einfacher solche Seltsamkeiten zu tolerieren. Es scheint offensichtlich, dass Houellebecq hier das erzliberale Memmentum gewisser intellektueller europäischer Kreise karikiert, die im Namen der Toleranz alles opfern, einschließlich ihrer eigenen Lebensgrundlage. Erstaunlich ist das Fehlen wissenschaftlicher Zukunftsvisionen wie noch in Elementarteilchen oder Die Möglichkeit einer Insel. Keine Gentechnik, keine Klone, keine Utopie oder Dystopie. Der Positivist Houellebecq scheint das Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft verloren zu haben. So ist Unterwerfung ein wesentlich pessimistischeres Buch als seine Vorgänger, das unter seiner stillen Oberfläche ein sardonisches Lächeln zur Schau trägt.Wie einigen anderen Lesern, hat mir auch folgende Passage am besten gefallen (obwohl oder gerade weil sie nichts mit Politik zu tun hat?):„Über die Literatur ist vieles, vielleicht zu vieles geschrieben worden (als Literaturwissenschaftler steht mir dieses Urteil mehr als jedem anderen zu), dabei ist die spezifische Besonderheit der Literatur, der hohen Kunst der westlichen, vor unseren Augen untergehenden Welt nicht schwierig zu bestimmen. Die Musik kann im selben Maße wie die Literatur erschüttern, eine gefühlsmäßige Umkehr, Traurigkeit oder absolute Ekstase bewirken; die Malerei kann im selben Maße wie die Literatur verzücken, einen neuen Blick auf die Welt eröffnen. Aber allein die Literatur vermittelt uns das Gefühl von Verbundenheit mit einem anderen menschlichen Geist, mit allem, was diesen Geist ausmacht, mit seinen Schwächen und seiner Größe, seinen Grenzen, seinen Engstirnigkeiten, seinen fixen Ideen, seinen Überzeugungen; mit allem, was ihn berührt, interessiert, erregt oder abstößt. Allein die Literatur erlaubt uns, mit dem Geist eines Toten in Verbindung zu treten, auf direkte, umfassendere und tiefere Weise, als das selbst in einem Gespräch mit einem Freund möglich wäre – denn so tief und dauerhaft eine Freundschaft sein mag, niemals liefert an sich in einem Gespräch so restlos aus, wie man sich einem leeren Blatt ausliefert, das sich an einen unbekannten Empfänger richtet. Natürlich sind, wenn es um Literatur geht, die Schönheit des Stils, die Musikalität der Sätze von Wichtigkeit. Die Tiefe und Originalität der Gedanken des Autors sind nicht unwesentlich; aber ein Autor ist zuvorderst ein Mensch, der in seinen Büchern gegenwärtig ist; ob er gut schreibt oder schlecht, ist dabei zweitrangig, die Hauptsache ist, dass er schreibt und wirklich in seinen Büchern gegenwärtig ist. … Ein Buch, das man mag, ist zudem vor allem ein Buch, dessen Autor man mag, dem man gern begegnet, mit dem man gern seine Tage verbringt.“
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    In Submission, Michel Houellebecq imagines a France of the near future where a weakening of familiar political allegiances opens the door for an Islamic party, the Muslin Brotherhood, to seize power. It is 2022, election season, and unrest throughout Europe is making people nervous about the future. France in particular, after years of political bickering and scandal, is ripe for change. Francois, a middle-age expert on Huysmans, teaches at the Sorbonne. Emotionally and materially selfish, a disillusioned loner intellectual, concerned mainly with his own erotic appetites, Francois observes the changes taking place around him at a sardonic remove, unable and unwilling to commit to anything, interested only insofar as the changes affect him, but unconvinced that anything of meaning will actually take place (this is France after all). However, as the Muslim Brotherhood gains traction and is taken seriously as a viable alternative to the traditional parties that have failed again and again, and as their ascent begins to seem not just reasonable but inevitable, even desirable, things happen that compel him to sit up and take notice. The most momentous of these events occurs when his girlfriend Myriam (actually a former student with whom he still sleeps occasionally), follows her family and moves to Israel (Myriam is Jewish). With the loss of the only emotional link to another human being that means anything to him (this is significant because their relationship is driven almost exclusively by sex), Francois begins to drift, even more than usual. Then the Brotherhood assumes power. Almost overnight French society undergoes a revolutionary shift, and Francois finds a life-changing decision thrust upon him by circumstances that, in Houellebecq’s rendition, seem entirely plausible. Submission is a subtle political satire narrated by a self-involved protagonist whom the reader never really grows to like, but who is none the less totally fascinating. Michel Houellebecq has written an absorbing and provocative novel that may leave us untouched emotionally, but which gives us plenty to think about.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    The Submission by Amy Waldman
    4.5 Stars

    This novel was very thought provoking and I found myself thinking about how grief can have a very complicated path. The story looks at the characters' reactions from many different perspectives.

    The story begins two years after the World Trade Center devastation. A committee has been selected to choose the memorial design from hundreds of anonymous submissions. One of the committee members is Claire Burwell, a 9/11 widow and representative of the 9/11 families and their wishes. Eventually they make their selection and open the sealed envelope to see who the successful designer is. The winner is Mohammed Khan, an American citizen born and raised in Virginia. His name is leaked to the media and most of the committee is against selecting his design.

    The author has filled the story with many characters to cover all the viewpoints. Claire, Mohammed Khan, an ambitious governor, a crazy radio talk show host, the deceitful New York Times reporter, an attention grabbing brother of one of the victims, the anti-Islam housewife, and a Bangladeshi widow whose janitor husband was an illegal immigrant killed in the attack.

    Mohammed Khan was a complex character. I was sympathetic to his situation but curious about his motives in submitting his design. Khan, formerly a non-practicing Muslim, begins exploring his religion during the controversy. His continued refusal to explain his motives and answer questions alienates almost everyone.

    I found my perspective changed after reading The Submission. Even though it's a novel I was drawn to the characters, despite their flaws, and many of the reactions seem very realistic. The author does a good job of analyzing motives, feelings and behavior to show all perspectives. In the end I wondered what decision I would make.

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    When it seems that Marine Le Pen's National Front has an even chance of winning the 2022 French elections, the Socialists and a centre-right party, the UMP, form a coalition with the apparently moderate Muslim Fraternity to make sure of defeating the racist, far-right National Front. The narrator clearly describes the compromises the parties must make, the long-held policies the socialists and the UMP must sacrifice, in order to make a deal. After the coalition wins the election, the Islamic religion and culture subsume French society. Women disappear from public life, the school leaving age is lowered to twelve, social welfare payments are eliminated, only Islamic educational institutions are publicly funded, Jews emigrate en masse, and men take multiple wives, some as young as fifteen.Francois, the narrator, is a professor of literature at the Sorbonne, specialising in Huysmans, best known for Against the Grain, published in 1884, about the decadent life of the wealthy, aristocratic Des Esseintes, who was based partly on the infamous Robert de Montesquiou, who was also a model for Proust's Baron Charlus. Huysmans is a recurring theme in Submission. Francois compares the decadence of contemporary French society to the decadence of Huysmans' time, and the imposition of Islamic religion and culture to Huysmans eventually embracing the Catholic church. In order to keep his job at the Sorbonne, Francois would have to convert to Islam.This is a comedy, but I gasped before I laughed. Francois is depressed and alienated, and cares for no-one. He is utterly neutral, taking no ethical stand whatsoever, guided only by his own self-interest, but his only interests are eating, drinking, smoking, sex and Huysmans. His colleagues are no better. French culture disappears as every man looks after himself.Submission is a hugely entertaining and thought-provoking book. Read it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Houellebecq’s SUBMISSION takes a satirical look at Europe (and the West) in the near future. We are bored; capitalism and globalism are failing; liberalism does not seem to have suitable answers; greed and materialism are rampant; and our heroes are mindless celebrities and sports stars. Society is exhausted and new societal structures seem to be in order. We are in need of a rebirth of meaning in some form of idealism. His narrator, Francois, is a French academic, who is intensely pessimistic, fundamentally isolated and apathetic, with the sole exception of his scholarly interest in the obscure 19th Century French writer— Huysman. The plot revolves around political upheaval in France that cedes power to the Muslims. Francois is faced with the pragmatic decision of converting to Islam in order to keep his faculty appointment. Curiously, Islam in this novel seems benign; lacking in the extremes the West has come to associate with jihad. Houellebecq’s choice of Huysman is inspired because he represents a man, who evolved from nihilism and decadence to embracing Catholicism. Following the political turmoil, Francois sets out on a similar journey but quickly discovers that Catholicism will not provide the solace he requires; moreover, he concludes that Huysman’s acceptance of Catholicism may in fact have been deluded.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Wären die Anschläge in Paris nicht erfolgt, hätte wohl kein Hahn nach dem Roman gekräht. Weil es die Anschläge aber gab, fühlten sich viele berufen, Houellebecqs Roman in ihrem Sinn zu interpretieren. Und sehr viele taten das recht einseitig, wie in den diversen Qualitäts- und sonstigen Blättern nachzulesen ist. Der Roman bekam dadurch einen Drive, der die Verkaufszahlen sicher zusätzlich in die Höhe schnellen lässt, was aber nicht bedeutet, dass der Roman unbedingt gut sein muss.Aus meiner Sicht ist er sehr mittelmäßig. Ja, Houellebecq entwirft ein Frankreich, das vom Islam und seinen Wertvorstellungen dominiert ist. Er bedient dabei alle gängigen Klischees und stellt die (vom Ich-Erzähler zunehmend positiv bewertete) devote Rolle der Frau in einen Mittelpunkt. Überhaupt der Ich-Erzähler. Viele Rezensenten setzen in (warum auch immer?) mit Houellebecq gleich, wozu es keinen Anlass gibt. Der Universitätslehrer in seinen Vierzigern mit seiner Midlife-Crises unterscheidet sich wenig von anderen Figuren des Autors, hier kann man fast schon von einem Stereotyp sprechen. Hat man seinen Charakter, seine Wünsche und Sehnsüchte erst identifiziert, wird er als Erzähler und Protagonist schnell langweilig.Apropos Erzählen. Empfohlen sei dieses Buch all jenen, die einen Faible für Boris-Karl Huysmans, den dieser ist im Roman allgegenwärtig. Immerhin ist der Ich-Erzähler ja auch ausgewiesener Huysmans-Spezialist. Und so dreht sich vieles um diesen Schriftsteller, der im Alter zum Katholizismus konvertiert ist. Überhaupt sollte man in französischer Literatur und Philosophie bewandert sein, um zumindest den durchaus vorhandenen intellektuellen Input des Romans genießen zu können.Die Entwürfe der Handlungsstränge hingegen lassen zu wünschen übrig. Die Eltern des Protagonisten erscheinen ebenso schnell wie sie sterben, dir Freundin (so man sie als solche bezeichnen muss) hat zwar ein paar Blowjob-Auftritte, empfiehlt sich dann aber nach Israel. Und was den Ich-Erzähler betrifft, stellt sich die Frage, warum der Autor dafür das Berufsbild eines frustrierten Hochschullehrers gewählt hat, wo Houellebecq doch im Nachwort dazu bekennt, nie an einer Hochschule gewesen zu sein.In einem muss man Houellebecq allerdings verteidigen: Jene Passagen, die die Konvertierung des Ich-Erzählers zumIslam betreffen, sind allesamt im Konjunktiv geschrieben. Einfache Interpretationen der (oft voreiligen) Kritiker hinsichtlich der persönlichen Einstellung des Autors sind daher streng zurückzuweisen.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Ein Zukunftsszenario ab 2020 für Europa bzw Frankreich. Was könnte sein, wenn ein muslim Ministerpräsident an die Macht kommt: Frauen/ Mädchen bleiben alle fortan zuhause, Schulpflicht bis 12 Jahre, Arbeitslosen- und Kriminalitätsrate sinkt, Handwerks-Familienbetriebe nehmen zu, Römisches Reich bis nach Ägypten und Polygamie! Ganz unspektakulär beschrieben von einem frustrierten Uniprof, der über Joris Huysmans promovierte und ihn nicht losläßt. USA und Weltpolitik kommen garnicht vor. Ein leichtkritisches, zynisches Buch. Ende etwas lasch, sonst lesenswert und interessant.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Paris 2022: Die Welt des 44jährigen unpolitischen Literaturprofessors Francoise, mit dem Spezialgebiet "Huysmans", einem Romancier des 19.Jahrunderts, bricht auseinander als im zweiten Wahlgang der Präsidentschaftswahlen eine Koalition der Sozialisten mit der Muslim Bruderschaft die Wahl gewinnt. Bürgerkriegsähnliche Zustände erschütternParis, Juden verlassen fluchtartig das Land. Der neue Präsident Frankreichs ist ein Moslem. Vor allem die Bildungspolitik wird neu geordnet, Kinder nach Geschlechtern getrennt, mit dem Pflichtfach Islam, unterrichtet. Universitäten werden vorübergehend geschlossen und ein Alkoholverbot trifft Francoise besonders hart. Doch allmählich scheint dieOrdnung wieder hergestellt, wenn auch die Studentinnen in der wieder eröffneten Sorbonne verschleiert vor Francoise Platz nehmen... Der Titel des gesellschaftskritischen Autors hat in Frankreich für Furore gesorgt, ist aber keinesfalls provokativ oder polarisierend. Vielmehr gelingt es dem Autor die unpolitische Dekadenz der Intelligenz Frankreichs erschreckend real zu schildern.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Solider Roman, eine teilweise erschreckende Prophezeiung die vielleicht irgendeines Tages akut werden könnte. Der Hauptcharakter interessiert sich nur für Sex, Alkohohol und gutes Essen und wirft am Ende seine Prinzipien für ein opulentes Gehalt über Bord.Typisch für die Charaktere von Houellebecq.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This was interesting, but not very deep. It did end better than I expected, but was just an average book for the time it took to read.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Despite the glowing reviews, I probably wouldn't have chosen to read Amy Waldman's The Submission if it were not my book group's May selection. I feel as if I've read and watched enough stories exploring the trauma of the 9/11 attacks that all possible emotional and psychological territory has been covered.

    Ms. Waldman hasn't found a new planet in the 9/11 universe, but her fictional story of the chaos following the selection of a memorial design to honor the victims is a thoughtful portrayal of the complex relations Muslim-Americans faced during the years following the attacks.

    The novel opens with a jury of 13 choosing between two final designs for a memorial to be built on the site of the destroyed towers. A rule of the competition is that the designers remain anonymous until the winner is announced. The jury chooses "The Garden," and the chairman opens the envelope to read the name of the winning designer: Mohammed Khan. So begins a saga that will upend the lives of the enigmatic Mr. Khan, some members of the jury, families of the victims and assorted other characters.

    The story is told primarily from the perspectives of the ambitious architect Mo Khan and the wealthy Claire Burwell, a 9/11 widow who has championed his design on the jury. These two seem to have more in common with each other than with anyone else in their lives, and the reader has the feeling that if they could just sit down for dinner together, they would form an impregnable alliance. But a conversation doesn't happen until too late, after events have forced both into entrenched positions.

    If the novel asks a central question, it is probably "how can we learn to trust each other?" That's a crucial debate for any society.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    The plot, simply stated: in a design competition for a 9/11 memorial, the winner is a Muslim; controversy ensues.

    After the first chapter or two, I wasn't sure I was going to like this book. The characters seemed a little too stock. But the complexities grew. The author is very good at developing the nuances of each competing side of the controversy that I was forced to wonder, "What decision would I make if I were on the competition's jury?" I thought I had my mind made up in the beginning; by the end I wasn't so sure.

    The characters can sometimes be exasperating, but given the heat of the posited situation, I think that's the truth. (I have to admit that I never fully understood the mind of the designer at the center of the controversy, but he was a conflicted character--I'm not sure he fully understood himself, torn by the various forces around and within him.)

    The author also has a way with words. Some of her passages were sterling.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Francois is a professor and scholar at the Sorbonne, an expert on J.K. Huysmans. A womanizing bachelor, he is suffering a vague middle age malaise. There is an election going on in France, and Marine LePen's Party and the Islamist Party end up in the runoffs. In the final election, the Islamist Party wins, leading to major changes in French society. Overnight females can no longer teach at the Sorbonne. In fact, males cannot teach at the Sorbonne unless they convert to Islam. In addition, male faculty are encouraged to take multiple wives. Most Jews, including Francois's then girlfriend, leave the country. Francois can't decide what to do, and for the most part doesn't really seem to care.I've read one other book by Houllebecq, I can't remember which, and I didn't like it at all. I intended never to read another book by him. Then this one came out, and the premise was interesting. This was easy to read, although it is not a novel of plot or character development. I didn't find it compelling. I'm afraid Houellebecq identifies too much with characters like Francois.2 1/2 stars
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    thoroughly enjoyable, creative and ironic critique of american culture. a great read and an excellent choice for book clubs, even non fiction focused ones.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    There were parts of this book that really worked, but overall it suffered from the author's failure to decide what kind of book she was trying to write. Swaths of the book read like satire, and overall the satire is better than decent. But then the book turns in another direction, toward straight ahead drama and an examination of healing and hate, and that part of the book bounces between pedestrian and straight up ridiculous. The writer created characters like the Post "journalist" and the Governor who are pure satire, but then she plunks them down in the middle of an earnest allegory. It makes the whole sort of ridiculous. Imagine Buck Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove being featured in Saving Private Ryan. So reading this as satire there are situations and characters which are too straightforward and objective, and reading it as a serious novel which explores America's anti-Islam direction and the ways in which it isolates us it is a book filled with underdeveloped characters. Some of those characters are straight up Snidely Whiplash evil (Debbie Dawson, Alyssa Spier, the governor) and some are imbued only with everything good and noble (Asma, Leila), and not one reads like a real person. There are things to like here, its a fantastic premise, but a surer writer would have been very welcome.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    A jury of 12 people, including artists, politicians, and a family member, select a design for the memorial for the 9/11 bombing site in New York City. Because the process is blind, they do not know that the architect of the winning design is Mohammed Khan, an American Muslim. The reactions are swift and varied. Waldman explores the nuances of the reactions from family members, politicians, the American Muslim community, Conservative radio, and more. She deeply explores their certainties and their doubt, creating no purely good or purely bad people, but a range of people who wrestle with a complex decision. All in all, I was very impressed with how she handled a difficult topic.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    The Submission was like a good Tom Wolfe novel without the excessive description. It presents a kaleidoscopic view of New York as it deals with a controversy after a jury in a blind selection process chose a design for the 9/11 memorial that was done by an (atheist, non-believing) Muslim. The characters are all familiar New Yorkers: the urbane architect, the widow who was married to an investment banker, the distinguished former head of an investment bank who chairs the jury as a step towards even better boards, the dead firefighter's brother whose reinfuses his life with purpose by rallying against the memorial design, the Iranian lawyer with a foot in the Muslim community and a foot in publicity, the New York Post's sensationalist reporter, the ambitious governor and most poignantly an undocumented Bangladeshi widow of a janitor who dies on 9/11.

    Every one of these characters are familiar, almost a stereotype, but they are also all presented with an impressive degree of sympathy, understanding of their motives, and a presentation of how they are unsure of what they are doing.

    Amy Waldman also does an impressive job of taking what seems like a clever concept and turning it into a full novel, as the plot develops and incident builds on incident, culminating in a every effective ending. And she takes what I still think of as a morally black-and-white issue but finds interesting ambiguities and questions and dilemmas that emerge from it.

    The Submission has a lot of good writing and interesting phrases, but it is not an exercise in flashy writing or novel storytelling methods, instead it is more about its range of subjects and the dilemmas it presents. It is not meant as an insult to the book to say that it would be a good choice as required reading in high schools where you could picture the endless discussions of the various dilemmas it poses, as well as a lesson in intolerance and bigotry.

Book preview

The Submission - Amy Waldman

1

The names, Claire said. What about the names?

They’re a record, not a gesture, the sculptor replied. Ariana’s words brought nods from the other artists, the critic, and the two purveyors of public art arrayed along the dining table, united beneath her sway. She was the jury’s most famous figure, its dominant personality, Claire’s biggest problem.

Ariana had seated herself at the head of the table, as if she were presiding. For the previous four months they had deliberated at a table that had no head, being round. It was in an office suite high above the gouged earth, and there the other jurors had deferred to the widow’s desire to sit with her back to the window, so that the charnel ground below was only a gray blur when Claire walked to her chair. But tonight the jury was gathered, for its last arguments, at Gracie Mansion’s long table. Ariana, without consultation or, it appeared, compunction, had taken pride of place, giving notice of her intent to prevail.

The names of the dead are expected; required, in fact, by the competition rules, she continued. For such a scouring woman, her voice was honeyed. In the right memorial, the names won’t be the source of the emotion.

They will for me, Claire said tightly, taking some satisfaction in the downcast eyes and guilty looks along the table. They’d all lost, of course—lost the sense that their nation was invulnerable; lost their city’s most recognizable icons; maybe lost friends or acquaintances. But only she had lost her husband.

She wasn’t above reminding them of that tonight, when they would at last settle on the memorial. They had winnowed five thousand entries, all anonymous, down to two. The final pruning should have been easy. But after three hours of talk, two rounds of voting, and too much wine from the mayor’s private reserve, the conversation had turned ragged, snappish, repetitive. The Garden was too beautiful, Ariana and the other artists kept saying of Claire’s choice. They saw for a living, yet when it came to the Garden they wouldn’t see what she saw.

The concept was simple: a walled, square garden guided by rigorous geometry. At the center would be a raised pavilion meant for contemplation. Two broad, perpendicular canals quartered the six-acre space. Pathways within each quadrant imposed a grid on the trees, both living and steel, that were studded in orchard-like rows. A white perimeter wall, eighteen feet high, enclosed the entire space. The victims would be listed on the wall’s interior, their names patterned to mimic the geometric cladding of the destroyed buildings. The steel trees reincarnated the buildings even more literally: they would be made from their salvaged scraps.

Four drawings showed the Garden across the seasons. Claire’s favorite was the chiaroscuro of winter. A snow shroud over the ground; leafless living trees gone to pewter; cast-steel trees glinting with the rose light of late afternoon; the onyx surfaces of the canals shining like crossed swords. Black letters scored on the white wall. Beauty wasn’t a crime, but there was more than beauty here. Even Ariana conceded that the spartan steel trees were an unexpected touch—reminders that a garden, for all its reliance on nature, was man-made, perfect for a city in which plastic bags wafted along with birds and air-conditioner runoff mixed in with rain. Their forms would look organic, but they would resist a garden’s seasonal ebb and flow.

The Void is too dark for us, Claire said now, as she had before. Us: the families of the dead. Only she, on the jury, stood for Us. She loathed the Void, the other finalist, Ariana’s favorite, and Claire was sure the other families would, too. There was nothing void-like about it. A towering black granite rectangle, some twelve stories high, centered in a huge oval pool, it came off in the drawings as a great gash against the sky. The names of the dead were to be carved onto its surface, which would reflect into the water below. It mimicked the Vietnam Veterans Memorial but, to Claire, missed the point. Such abstraction worked when humans could lay their hands on it, draw near enough to alter the scale. But the names on the Void couldn’t be reached or even seen properly. The only advantage the design had was height. Claire worried that some of the families—so jingoistic, so literal-minded—might see the Garden as conceding territory to America’s enemies, even if that territory was air.

Gardens are fetishes of the European bourgeoisie, Ariana said, pointing to the dining-room walls, which were papered with a panorama of lush trees through which tiny, formally dressed men and women strolled. Ariana herself was, as usual, dressed entirely in a shade of gruel that she had patented in homage to and ridicule of Yves Klein’s brilliant blue. The mockery of pretension, Claire decided, could also be pretentious.

Aristocratic fetishes, the jury’s lone historian corrected. The bourgeoisie aping the aristocracy.

It’s French, the wallpaper, the mayor’s aide, his woman on the jury, piped up.

My point being, Ariana went on, that gardens aren’t our vernacular. We have parks. Formal gardens aren’t our lineage.

Experiences matter more than lineages, Claire said.

No, lineages are experiences. We’re coded to have certain emotions in certain kinds of places.

Graveyards, Claire said, an old tenacity rising within her. Why are they often the loveliest places in cities? There’s a poem—George Herbert—with the lines: ‘Who would have thought my shrivel’d heart / Could have recover’d greennesse?’ A college friend had written the scrap of poetry in a condolence card. The Garden, she continued, will be a place where we—where the widows, their children, anyone—can stumble on joy. My husband… she said, and everyone leaned in to listen. She changed her mind and stopped speaking, but the words hung in the air like a trail of smoke.

Which Ariana blew away. I’m sorry, but a memorial isn’t a graveyard. It’s a national symbol, an historic signifier, a way to make sure anyone who visits—no matter how attenuated their link in time or geography to the attack—understands how it felt, what it meant. The Void is visceral, angry, dark, raw, because there was no joy on that day. You can’t tell if that slab is rising or falling, which is honest—it speaks exactly to this moment in history. It’s created destruction, which robs the real destruction of its power, dialectically speaking. The Garden speaks to a longing we have for healing. It’s a very natural impulse, but maybe not our most sophisticated one.

You have something against healing? Claire asked.

We disagree on the best way to bring it about, Ariana answered. I think you have to confront the pain, face it, even wallow in it, before you can move on.

I’ll take that under consideration, Claire retorted. Her hand clamped over her wineglass before the waiter could fill it.

Paul could barely track who was saying what. His jurors had devoured the comfort food he had requested—fried chicken, mashed potatoes, brussels sprouts with bacon—but the comfort was scant. He prided himself on getting along with formidable women—was, after all, married to one—but Claire Burwell and Ariana Montagu together strained him, their opposing sureties clashing like electric fields, the room crackling with their animus. In her critique of the Garden’s beauty, of beauty itself, Paul sensed Ariana implying something about Claire.

His mind wandered to the coming days, weeks, months. They would announce the winning design. Then he and Edith would visit the Zabars at their home in Ménerbes, a respite for Paul between the months of deliberation and the fund-raising for the memorial that would begin on his return. It would be a major challenge, with the construction of each of the two finalists estimated at $100 million, minimum, but Paul enjoyed parting his friends from serious money. Countless ordinary Americans were sure to open their wallets, too.

Then this chairmanship would lead to others, or so Edith assured him. Unlike many of her friends, his wife did not collect Chanel suits or Harry Winston baubles, although she had quantities of both. Her eye was for prestigious positions, and so she imagined Paul as chairman of the public library, where he already sat on the board. It had more money than the Met, and Edith had pronounced Paul literary, although Paul himself wasn’t sure he’d read a novel since The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Perhaps we should talk more about the local context, said Madeline, a community power broker from the neighborhood ringing the site. As if on cue, Ariana extracted from her bag a drawing she had made of the Void to show how well it would play against the cityscape. The Void’s vertical properties, she said, echoed Manhattan’s. Claire arched her eyebrows at Paul. Ariana’s sketch, as she called it, was better than the drawings accompanying the submission. Claire had complained to Paul more than once that she suspected Ariana knew the Void’s designer—a student, a protégé?—because she seemed so eager to help it along. Maybe, although he didn’t think Ariana had done any more for her favorite than Claire had for hers. For all her poise, Claire couldn’t seem to handle not getting her way. Nor could Ariana, who was used to dominating juries without this one’s slippery quota of sentiment.

The group retreated to the parlor, with its warm yellow walls, for dessert. Jorge, the chef at Gracie Mansion, wheeled in a cart laden with cakes and cookies. Then he unveiled, with little fanfare, a three-foot-high gingerbread reconstruction of the vanished towers. The shapes were unmistakable. The silence was profound.

It’s not meant to be eaten, Jorge said, suddenly shy. It’s a tribute.

Of course, said Claire, then added, with more warmth, It’s like a fairy tale. Chandelier light glinted off the poured-sugar windows.

Paul had piled his plate with everything but the gingerbread when Ariana planted herself in front of him like a tiny spear. In concert they drifted toward a secluded corner behind the piano.

I’m concerned, Paul, Ariana said. I don’t want our decision based too much on—the last word almost lowed—emotion.

We’re selecting a memorial, Ariana. I’m not sure emotion can be left out of it entirely.

You know what I mean. I worry that Claire’s feelings are having disproportionate impact.

Ariana, some might argue that you have disproportionate impact. Your opinions command enormous respect.

Not compared to a family member. Sorrow can be a bully.

So can taste.

As it should be, but we’re talking about something more profound than taste here. Judgment. Having a family member in the room—it’s like we’re letting the patient, not the doctor, decide on the best course of treatment. A little clinical distance is healthy.

Out of the corner of his eye, Paul saw Claire deep in conversation with the city’s preeminent critic of public art. She had seven inches on him, with her heels, but she made no effort to slouch. Dressed tonight in a fitted black sheath—the color, Paul suspected, no incidental choice—she was a woman who knew how to outfit herself for maximum advantage. Paul respected this, although respect was perhaps the wrong word for how she figured in his imaginings. Not for the first time, he rued his age (twenty-five years her senior), his hair loss, and his loyalty—more institutional than personal, perhaps—to his marriage. He watched her detach herself from the critic to follow yet another juror from the room.

I know she’s affecting, he heard; his eyeing of Claire had been unsubtle. He turned sharply toward Ariana, who continued: But the Garden’s too soft. Designed to please the same Americans who love impressionism.

I happen to like impressionism, Paul said, not sure whether to pretend he was joking. I can’t muzzle Claire, and you know the family members are more likely to support our design if they feel part of the process. We need the emotional information she provides.

Paul, you know there’s a whole critique out there. If we pick the wrong memorial, if we yield to sentimentalism, it only confirms—

I know the concerns, he said gruffly: that it was too soon for a memorial, the ground barely cleared; that the country hadn’t yet won or lost the war, couldn’t even agree, exactly, on who or what it was fighting. But everything happened faster these days—the building up and tearing down of idols; the spread of disease and rumor and trends; the cycling of news; the development of new monetary instruments, whose complexity had speeded Paul’s own retirement from the chairmanship of the investment bank. So why not the memorial, too? Commercial exigencies were at work, it was true: the developer who controlled the site wanted to remonetize it and needed a memorial to do so, since Americans seemed unlikely to accept the maximization of office space as the most eloquent rejoinder to terrorism. But there were patriotic exigencies, too. The longer that space stayed clear, the more it became a symbol of defeat, of surrender, something for them, whoever they were, to mock. A memorial only to America’s diminished greatness, its new vulnerability to attack by a fanatic band, mediocrities in all but murder. Paul would never put it so crudely, but the blank space was embarrassing. Filling in that blank, as much as Edith’s ambitions, was why he had wanted to chair the jury. Its work would mark not only his beloved city but history, too.

Ariana was waiting for more from Paul. You’re wasting your time on me, he said brusquely. The winner needed ten of thirteen votes; Paul had made clear he would abandon neutrality only if a finalist was one short. If I were you, I’d go rescue Maria from Claire.

Claire had seen Maria heading outside, cigarette in hand, and hurried after her. She had been pleading—no other word for it—with the critic, telling him, Just because we’re memorializing the dead doesn’t mean we need to create a dead place, watching him roll his head as if his neck hurt from looking up at her. But she also had been scavenging her memory for tidbits from law school: the science of juries. The Asch experiments, what did Asch show? How easily people were influenced by other people’s perceptions. Conformity. Group polarization. Normative pressures. Reputational cascades: how the desire for social approval influences the way people think and act. Which meant Claire’s best chance was to get jurors alone. Maria was a public art curator who had made her mark placing large-scale artworks, including one of Ariana’s, around Manhattan. This made her an unlikely defector, but Claire had to try.

Got an extra? she asked.

Maria handed her a cigarette. I wouldn’t have pegged you as a smoker.

Only occasionally, Claire lied. As in never.

They were standing on the veranda, the lawn spread before them, its majestic trees mere smudges in the dark, the lights of the bridges and boroughs like proximate constellations. Maria ashed complacently over the railing onto the lawn, and although it struck Claire as somehow disrespectful, she did the same.

A ruined garden within the walls—that I could get behind, Maria said.

Excuse me?

It would be so powerful as a work of art, would answer any worries about erasing the hard memories. We have to think of history here, the long view, a symbolism that will speak to people a hundred years from now. Great art transcends its time.

A ruined garden has no hope and that’s unacceptable, Claire said, unable to help her sharpness. You all keep talking about the long view, but the long view includes us. My children, my grandchildren, people with a direct connection to this attack are going to be around for the next hundred years, and maybe that’s a blip when you look back at the Venus of Willendorf, but it certainly seems a long time now. So I don’t see why our interests should count any less. You know, the other night I dreamed about that black pool around the Void, that my husband’s hand was reaching up from the water to pull me down into it. That’s the effect the Void has. So you can go there and congratulate yourself on what a brilliant artistic statement you made, but I don’t think family members will be lining up to visit.

Her anger was no less genuine for her having learned, months back, its power. On a wintry afternoon, as she and the other widows left a meeting with the director of the government’s compensation fund, a reporter in the waiting press pack had shouted, How do you answer Americans who say they’re tired of your sense of entitlement, that you’re being greedy? Claire had gripped her purse to keep her hands from shaking, but she didn’t bother to mute the tremble in her voice. Entitlement? Was that the word you used? The reporter shrank back. Was I entitled to lose my husband? Was I entitled to have to explain to my children why they will never know their father, to have to raise them alone? Am I entitled to live knowing the suffering my husband endured? This isn’t about greed. Do your homework: I don’t need a penny of this compensation and don’t plan to keep it. This isn’t about money. It’s about justice, accountability. And yes, I am entitled to that.

She claimed, later, to have been unaware the television cameras were rolling, but they captured every word. The clip of the death-pale blonde in the black coat was replayed so often that for days she couldn’t turn on the television without seeing herself. Letters of support poured in, and Claire found herself a star widow. She hadn’t meant to make a political statement. In truth she had been offended by the notion that she was grubbing for money and was seeking to set herself apart from those who were. Instead she emerged as their champion, the Secretary of Sorrow Services. Her leadership, she knew, was the reason the governor had picked her for the jury.

On the veranda Maria was eyeing her quizzically. Claire met her stare and took a drag so dizzying she had to grip the railing for support. She felt only a little guilty. Everything she said had been true except her certainty that the hand reaching up was Cal’s.

Maria switched first. The Garden, she said bravely. Claire started to mouth Thank you, then thought better of it. The critic came next. The Garden. This gave slightly less pleasure: Claire, studying his basset-hound face and poodle hair, had the disappointed sense that he had changed his vote because he was tired. Still, the Garden had eight votes now, which meant victory was in sight. But instead of celebrating, Claire began to sink inside. Tomorrow, absent the memorial competition, her life would lose its last bit of temporary form. She had no need of income, given her inheritance from Cal, and no commanding new cause. Her future was gilded blankness.

Aftermath had filled the two years since Cal’s death, the surge of grief yielding to the slow leak of mourning, the tedium of recovery, bathetic new routines that felt old from the get-go. Forms and more forms. Bulletins from the medical examiner: another fragment of her husband had been found. The cancellation of credit cards, driver’s license, club memberships, magazine subscriptions, contracts to buy works of art; the selling of cars and a sailboat; the scrubbing of his name from trusts and bank accounts and the boards of companies and nonprofits—all of it done with a ruthless efficiency that implicated her in his effacement. Offering her children memories of their father, only to load the past with so much value it strained beneath the weight.

But aftermath had to end. She sensed herself concluding a passage that had begun fourteen years ago, when a blue-eyed man notable less for good looks than for sheer vitality and humor and confidence had stopped her as she came off the tennis court he was taking over and said, I’m going to marry you.

The comment, she would come to learn, was typical of Calder Burwell, a man with a temperament so sunny that Claire nicknamed him California, even though it was she, having grown up there, who knew the state’s true fickle weather: the frost and drought that had kept her grandfather, a citrus farmer, perched near ruin for years before her father plunged straight into it. Of all her anguished, unanswerable wonderings about Cal’s death—where, how, how much pain—the worst, somehow, was the fear that his last moments had buckled his abiding optimism. She wanted him to have died believing that he would live. The Garden was an allegory. Like Cal, it insisted that change was not just possible, but certain.

It’s eleven o’clock, Paul said. I think someone may need to reconsider his or her vote. How can we ask this country to come together in healing if this jury can’t?

Guilty looks. A long silence. And finally, from the historian, an almost speculative Well… All bleary eyes turned to him, but he said nothing more, as if he had realized he held the fate of a six-acre chunk of Manhattan in his hands.

Ian? Paul prodded.

Even if inebriated, Ian wasn’t going without a lecture. He noted the beginnings of public gardens in suburban cemeteries in eighteenth-century Europe, segued into the garden-based reforms of Daniel Schreber in Germany (We’re interested in his social reforms, not the ‘reforms’ he carried out on his poor sons), jumped to the horror conveyed by Lutyens’s Memorial to the Missing of the Somme at Thiepval, in which seventy-three thousand names—Seventy-three thousand! Ian exclaimed—were inscribed on its interior walls, pondered the difference between national memory and veteran’s memory at Verdun, and concluded, some fifteen minutes later, with: And so, the Garden.

Paul, then, would be the tenth and final vote, and this didn’t displease him. He had insisted, for himself, on not just public neutrality but internal neutrality as well, so that no design had been allowed to catch his fancy. But over the course of the evening he had begun rooting for the Garden. Stumble on joy—the phrase had knocked something loose in him. Joy: What did it feel like? Trying to remember, he was overcome by longing. He knew satisfaction, the exhilaration of success, contentment, and happiness to the extent he could identify it. But joy? He must have felt it when his sons were born—that kind of event would surely occasion it—but he couldn’t remember. Joy: it was like a handle with no cupboard, a secret he didn’t know. He wondered if Claire did.

The Garden, he said, and the room broke loose, less with pleasure than relief.

Thank you, Paul. Thank you, everyone, Claire whispered.

Paul slumped in his chair and allowed himself some sentimental chauvinism. The dark horse had won—he hadn’t thought Claire could trump Ariana—and this seemed appropriately American. Champagne appeared, corks popped, a euphonious clamor filled the room. Paul clinked his flute to command their attention for a moment of silence in the victims’ honor. As heads bowed, he glimpsed the part in Claire’s hair, the line as sharp and white as a jet’s contrail, the intimacy as unexpected as a flash of thigh. Then he remembered to think of the dead.

He thought, too, of the day, as he hadn’t for a long time. He had been stuck in uptown traffic when his secretary called to say there had been an accident or attack and it might affect the markets. He was still going into the office in those days, not having learned yet that in an investment bank, emeritus translated to no longer one of us. When the traffic stopped completely, Paul got out of the car. Others were standing outside looking south, some shielding their eyes with their hands, all exchanging useless information. Edith called, sobbing It’s falling down, it’s falling down, the nursery-rhyme words, then the mobile network went dead. Hello? Hello? Honey? all around, then a silence of Pompeian density so disturbing that Paul was grateful when Sami, his driver, broke it to say, Oh sir, I hope it’s not the Arabs, which of course it would turn out to be.

Oh sir, I hope it’s not the Arabs. Sami wasn’t Arab, but he was Muslim. (Eighty percent of Muslims were not Arab: this was one of those facts many learned and earnestly repeated in the wake of the attack, without knowing exactly what they were trying to say, or rather knowing that they were trying to say that not all Muslims were as problematic as the Arab ones, but not wanting to say exactly that.) Paul had known his driver was Muslim but never dwelt on it. Now, despite all efforts otherwise, he felt uncomfortable, and three months later, when a sorrowful Sami—was he ever any other way?—begged leave to return to Pakistan because his father was dying, Paul was relieved, although he hated to admit it. He promised Sami an excellent recommendation if he returned, politely declined to take on his cousin, and hired a Russian.

The trauma, for Paul, had come later, when he watched the replay, pledged allegiance to the devastation. You couldn’t call yourself an American if you hadn’t, in solidarity, watched your fellow Americans being pulverized, yet what kind of American did watching create? A traumatized victim? A charged-up avenger? A queasy voyeur? Paul, and he suspected many Americans, harbored all of these protagonists. The memorial was meant to tame them.

Not just any memorial now but the Garden. Paul began his remarks by encouraging the jurors to go out there and sell it, sell it hard, then, rethinking his word choice, urged them to advocate for it instead. The soft patter of the minute-taker’s typing filled the interstices of his speech, and the specter of the historical record spurred him to unsteady rhetorical heights. He drew all eyes to a gilded round mirror topped with an eagle shedding its ball and chain.

Now, as at America’s founding, there are forces opposed to the values we stand for, who are threatened by our devotion to freedom. The governor’s man alone nodded at Paul’s words. But we have not been bowed, will not be. ‘Despotism can only exist in darkness,’ James Madison said, and all of you, in working so hard to memorialize the dead, have kept the lights burning in the firmament. You handled a sacred trust with grace and dignity, and your country will feel the benefit.

Time to put a face on the design, a name with it. Another unfamiliar feeling for Paul: avid, almost childlike curiosity—glee, even—at that rarity, a genuine surprise. Best if the designer was a complete unknown or a famous artist; either would make for a compelling story to sell the design. He clumsily punched away at a cell phone that sat on the table before him. Please bring the file for submission number 4879, he said into the phone, enunciating the numbers slowly to avoid misunderstanding. Four eight seven nine, he repeated, then waited for the digits to be repeated back to

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1