Skip to main content


Dear TLS -

I was glad to see a review in your latest issue (January 24) by Mona Tabbara, of The Boy From Aleppo Who Painted The War, in your In Brief section.

I am the editor and publisher of Sumia Sukkar's debut novel, which is why I was particularly struck by this review.

Sukkar's novel is about the Syrian civil war between 2012 and early 2013 - each chapter marks an increasingly terrible moment of escalation, from the cutting of electricity to a final gas attack outside of Damascus.  The book, filled with intertextual allusion, features many characters, but the narrator is Adam, a young man on the Autistic Spectrum.

Despite the fact that Ms Sukkar is the youngest-ever British Muslim woman to publish a novel - and despite the fact this is a political novel with much to say about terrorism, violence, faith, and art - and also develops a portrait of a very loving Muslim family coping with mental health issues and also wider social struggle - anyway, despite all of this, your reviewer mentioned none of this.

Instead, in her 250 word or so (it is brief) review, she spends the first half loosely describing one aspect of the plot, Adam's autism, and then spends the second half saying this autistic narrative voice becomes tedious, and is never as convincing as that of the boy in the best-selling Mark Haddon novel.

This is intellectually weak and rather poor stuff.  It is like reviewing The Diary of Anne Frank and forgetting to mention The Holocaust.

It is true that the narrator is disabled - but that is hardly the defining aspect of the novel.  As The Times noted in its review, the research is impeccable, and the evocation of the present day plight of Syrian refugees (the second half of the novel follows a group of refugees) convincing.  I have, it should be added, spoken to a writer doing their PhD on Asperger's and fiction, who claims that Adam is the most realistic instance of autism in fiction she has come across.  My godson is autistic, and, again, Adam seems spot on.  To claim his voice in the book is tedious is a bit like complaining that Milton is blind - one rather best get over it.  People are allowed their disabilities.

I would have expected this satirical, bold, very funny, and colourful novel to be reviewed with something close to interest in its engagement in a very serious ongoing crisis for millions of Syrians; and with some mention of its politically astute balancing of criticism for both the rebel and Assad sides.

I would not have expected such a bold and eye-opening book - one that many readers find brings them to tears - to be trivialised in such an offhand manner.

I am not sure what Ms. Tabbara's position vis a vis Syria's civil war is - but as she was reviewing a book set amidst its suffering, she might have given us some indication that the novel, indeed, was mainly and mostly, about that historic moment - and not simply a book about a young boy and his cat.  To say that the author, myself, and the novel's many supporters felt let down by this non-review is an understatement.

It is nothing short of a kind of dereliction of moral and critical duty to have written such a vapid disengaged review - and it leads me to think the reviewer did not read past the first few pages (indeed, she makes no mention of any incident past the first few chapters) - and this includes the death, mutilation, and rape, of various characters in the book; not does the reviewer seem to know that (spoiler alert) the narration switches voices for awhile mid-novel.

When a serious young British Muslim voice appears on the British literary landscape, is it too much to ask for her to be treated with the same sort of attention and seriousness that Martin Amis would get if they had written the same book, which, by its use of the trope of the "holy innocent" follows Voltaire and Dostoevsky, rather more than Haddon (Haddon's morally bland text is subtly and slyly satirised in Sukkar's book which shows that civil war is more than a curious incident)?

These reviews have a real impact on the reception of a novel, and especially when a review is of a serious debut novel, it seems only fair to expect the reviewer to take care to represent the full depth and range of the novel, rather than simply focus on one (in this case stylistic) aspect.  It isn't hard to give a young author a bad review; it is far more impressive to give them a truly reflective one.

kind regards,

Dr Todd Swift
Eyewear Publishing

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…