Discussion of Martin Amis's "The Last Days of Muhammad Atta" starting on March 1, 2007 with the participation of Professor Jean-Michel Ganteau (University of Montpellier 3, France), a renowned Amis scholar.

I'm curious as to why Martin Amis chose to write this short story. Does he usually write about American political topics or was there some other catalyst for "The Last Days of Muhammed Atta"?

Martin Amis is very much concerned with tings American. Some of his novels (_The Information_, Money_) are set both in Britain and in America (he resorts to dual plots to do so), and some of his short stories (in the _Heavy Water_ collection) deal with American culture. Amis is also a citizen of a world : he spends much of his time living in the USA and in Spain, and he is, despite appearance, some old-school moralist in many ways : this transpires through his fictional and non-fictional production. His writings are very often quite committed. I should also add that, from the European point of view, the 9/11 events do not only concern the USA (even if they essentially do, admittedly). So really, it is not that interesting that Martin Amis chose to write on that theme (Salman Rushdie, in _Fury_, comes close to such a practice of writing).

JMGanteau.

The story is quite intriguing, however, I do see a very feeble attempt to humanize these terrorists. By describing their daily routine and the preparation that went into their day. As far as I am concerned, most of the information described in Amis's story is irrelevant. The only piece of the article that I found to be of any value was the section which discussed the CAPS security withholding and inconvenience regarding the luggage. Once again, we see the security measures easily broken down or otherwise ineffective. And I cannot remember who said it, but someone said that the security at the Portland airport was much more relaxed than the security at Logan. And it would make sense for security people to seem more comfortable with people who had already flown without causing a disturbance. As far as I am concerned, this seems like a logical motivation for the early morning drive to Portland, and something that should either be looked into or at least credited/mentioned as a potential explanation. As I said, the story was interesting, because elusive figures are interesting, but I do not feel like the attempt to make these terrorists human could ever be warranted, and my quabble is consistent with "The Hamburg Cell".

of course, the humanization bit is quite destabilising. My hunch is that this could be read in the light of H. Arendt's point that what characterises evil (in the henchman) is that it comes from someone who is similar to us.

Yes, I would agree that the reason what they did is so inconceivable is because of how similiar their apparent daily routine was so close to ours. They woke up, showered, shaved, and went off on their daily business. Most of us our daily business is going to work or school. However, theirs was hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

One thing I’ve found interesting is all of the "historical fiction” that has been written about September 11, 2001. I know we are asking these questions in class, is it too soon to write about 9/11? Who has the authority to write about 9/11? The other big one is- should people be writing fiction about 9/11… stories that could lead readers to believe they are nonfiction? None of the hijackers, the people on the hijacked planes or people killed inside the World Trade Center are alive to tell us what really happened. So should we allow people to write fiction that very well could have happened, to give us an idea of what happened? Right down to the process that Muhammad Atta went through in the hotel bathroom, and the statement that he hadn’t defacated since May? I just wonder what makes these fiction writers go into such detail and how much of it they actually know to be true...?

One thing that really got my attention in part one of the story was the paragraph where they talked about the target code, particularly the code "electrical engineering", the nuclear power plant that Muhammad Atta had seen on one of his training flights near New York. While the possibility that they might have been planning to aim for a nuclear power plant is horrifying, I wonder what it was that held back the Sheikh from agreeing? They could have really destroyed the entire east coast of the United States- destruction from which the world superpower would have been taken out for sure. I was wondering if this was fictional or true, so I researched it online and learned (in a CNN article) that the original plot did include 10 planes and a nuclear power plant was one of the targets.

Amis’ paragraph about Atta’s feelings toward Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks reminded me of my anger after watching the film "The Hamburg Cell". The masterminds of the attacks were cowards who didn’t want to die themselves, so they recruited others to do their dirty work. I thought it was interesting that it was the Sheikh who decided not to include the nuclear power plant as a target, using the excuses of restricted airspace and no "symbolic" value. It seems to me that he was probably more concerned about making such an audacious move on the US, in fear of the consequences (since he would still be alive).

I was interested in Martin Amis' story and how he described Atta's personal characteristics. It was interesting how Amis mentioned that he was almost constantly nauseous, although it wasn't because of the act he was ready to commit. Also, I thought that Amis' description of Atta's inability to separate mind and body- and this had a powerful effect for the ending of Amis' story.

I thought that this fictional story can give people another lens to view the attackers through. I'm not condoning their acts by any means, but perhaps some of the attackers had other goals than the 72 virgins (or should I say raisins)?

The nausea detail is fairly important in that it might refer to the existential vision of nausea, a reference that might very well be used ironically here.

You raise a fundamental point in your second paragraph, i.e.: the potential, and extremely troubling proximity between the narrator and Atta. the impersonal narrator (that one cannot but associate with Amis) uses internal focalisation and psycho-narration or the interio monologue to present us with reality as seen through the terrorist's eyes. This of course is extremely shocking, and one of the main reasons for this is the fact that we tend, at times, to see the humanity of the monster. But it seems to me that this is but a strategy meant to build up a strong contrast with the eventual condemnation that is clearly dismissive. Once again, despite some mesure of ethical hesitation, in many parts of the text, the ending is unambiguous and the short story must be considered in relation with the satirical genre. Amis is a moralist.

Of course, this short story can be said to belong to the "historical fiction" category in many respects, at the same time, it is focalised through the consciousness and perceptions of the protagonist, Muhammad Atta (interestingly, the initials MA can stand for both Atta and Amis). The debate as to whether it is ethically correct to fictionalise historical events of such horror and magnitude has been one of the most debated points in contemporary criticism (at least from Adorno about the impossibility to write poetry after Auschwitz). However, what fiction can do is enter a character's consciouness (something such a medium as film cannot do). By choosing to put the reader into Atta's shoes, and by resorting to details relying on the sphere of the lower body, Amis clearly debunks the figure of the stern terrorist, and this is part of his satirical purpose. At the same time, he shows the possibility of some common humanity in the man, the better to condemn his inhumanity. I think the short story has to be seen from the angle of satire, really.

The 9/11 commission reports states that the exact events of Mohammed Atta's last days were unknown, except for the fact that he wired money back to Dubai in the U.A.E. Amis' story is a fictional account of the last days of the 9/11 hijackers and their behavior up until they arrived at the airport. Amis' piece however could be used to help explain the personality of Mohammad Atta and his madness. It shows him as a zealot and madman bent of the principles of jihad. He is portrayed as someone who hates life and everything around him. I really don’t know how I feel about the writing of this kind of fiction. I mean these 2 stories that were presented to us in class, I don’t know what the author wants us to feel about them. I was also wondering what kind of research Amis did do determine what material was suitable for use in this story? I guess this raises the question that we are discussing in class: is anyone entitled to write about 9/11, and if so who? I did not find this offensive but at the same time I did not understand what kind of category something like this is supposed to fits into. I was more interested in if any of this was true besides the names, places and events surrounding the story.

I am really interested in a passage from Butler’s “Precarious Life” where she explicates and (to some extent) reconceptualizes Hegel. She starts on page 43, “Consider that the struggle for recognition in the Hegelian sense requires that each partner in the exchange recognize not only that the other needs and deserves recognition, but also that each, in a different way, is compelled by the same need, the same requirement.”

I’m wondering if we can use this idea to discuss Martin Amis’ short story? In gaining recognition as an author, is he also granting Atta more recognition? And if we use the relationship between Amis and Atta as a metonymy for the larger relationship between East and West, does that shed any light on who is attempting to be recognized? By whom? And for what? And, most importantly, to what ends?

I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was surprised at Amis' portrayal of Muhammed Atta. Certainly I see some value in creating a work of fiction based on historical events; such works can be useful in examining the possibilities of what happened, possible points of view besides our own, and in giving a storyline some footing in reality. But the protrayal of Atta was so extreme, and so specific, it makes me wonder why Amis would write this story in the way that he did?

First off, I am curious as to how much of the story was based on fact. The only fact that I see is that Atta traveled to Portland before 9/11 for an unknown reason. Is there any basis for the suggestion that he was suffering physically, or that he was not particularly religious? How about the idea that he disliked Ziad Jarrah, and sought to ruin his final day by telling him that he would be tortured for his suicide before he was rewarded for his martyrdom? Is this grounded at all in reality?

If not, then why attribute these things to this particular person? Amis is clearly a talented writer and could easily have manufactured a fictional character to ascribe these ideas to. At first, I thought that perhaps he was striving to portray the terrorists not as strong believers and willing martyrs, but as weak, even disgusting, right up until the last minute - but Atta is the only one of the terrorists that he suggests is not religious, and not completely okay with the whole situation, at least physically. The others appear to be perfectly fine, and Atta seems to be separate from them in many ways.

The whole story truly confused me. There is always a reason to write what one chooses to write, and so there must be a reason why Amis chose to target a true historical person, this particular person, this particular event, and these particular personal attributes. But why?

Maybe it is the nurse in me that made me so disgusted with some of the ideas in the first chapter of this book ("Groundzeroland"). The terrorists wanted September 11th to be a work of art and make its mark on history, and many people give them credit by calling their barbaric acts "a work of art". I agree wholly with Tommasini's opinion that Stockhausen, who was quoted calling the events of 9/11 "the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos", should be confined to a psychiatric clinic. It really aggravates me that people can equate such blatent disregard for human life as "art". Maybe it is because I am not a huge literature buff or an avid enthusiast of art. I honestly don't really care. I would place human safety and wellness above any regard for art. It's fine if that performance artist Chris Burden wants to shoot himself to portray the "real", but if he starts shooting others I cannot endorse it. What if it was some music company headquarters in Germany that was blown up instead of the World Trade Centers in the United States? What if it was you, or your wife, or your parent whose body was liquidated in a massive explosion of jet fuel? Would you still call that a work of art?

I believe Lauren makes an extremely valid point, one that I often find myself forgetting when discussing theory with everyone in class and reading the complex hypothesis’ of the various authors we've read so far. She called attention back to the extreme evil of that day and away from the discussion of whether or not it can be percieved in a varient perspective (specifically that of art). It may be that I am unable to dwell any longer on the overwhelming loss of life, finding no solace or answers with no questions asked, so I am quick to write the tragedy off as the past and focus on the future because that is easier for me to deal with, personally.

When paralleling my interests in literary theory and mass media, with that of my basic, natural empathy, sheer morality…I admit, sometimes my assessment of the events, and the ripple effects that followed come off as cold, and unsympathetic to the loss of American lives in a most horrific way; and although I do believe that the 9/11 attacks spawned evil and terror in an almost unimaginable way, and should be condemned forever to hell as one of the many ultimate “disregards for human life” I think there’s a story to be told beyond my feelings, beyond anyone’s feelings or emotional attachments to that day in history. September 11th in 5 short years has already shown that the attacks on our country changed the course of our world, rewrote the rules of war fare and violently altered the human condition in a deep and profound way. But, (and here is where I disagree with Lauren’s exertion) if I were to discuss the “dark beauty” of a September 11th memorial photo montage on one of the million website memorials online, and engage its artistic implications (ie: tone, mood, message, editing, technique and device), I do not necessarily believe that this disregards the severity of the event or its horrible offense against innocent life, nor does it alter my personal feelings toward it. An event of this magnitude is beyond the individual, whether directly involved or not, and while we can choose to not have discussions concerning the artistic value, (or any sort of objective truth for that matter) of planes colliding into skyscrapers, what are we achieving by this censure? I do agree that on the small scale, the performance artist would never be revered for opening fire on random passerbys but this event was/is larger than life and beyond immediate comprehension (so we see in United 93); and I say ‘is’ because it is still happening, some long term effects are just being realized as the saga continues to unfold daily (ie World War III).

I call for a dialogue of every angel: art, architecture, politics, economics, religion… begin the discussions now, hack out the truths that lay shrouded in the disturbing wake of that day; let us not wait until every one of us who experienced it is dead and risk 9/11’s causes/effects to get lost in translation when determined by our legacies.

My belief that the loss of life on that day was evil, cowardly, terrorist extremist bullshit, that belief won’t stop me from exploring the event from different perspectives. Just because I explore those different perspectives, doesn’t mean I am unaffected personally by the horror, devastation and unimaginable tragedies of September the 11th.

I think its dangerous to be unaware of ideas and truths of other people (ie: extremists of every creed); since we all experienced it, "the world is flat" as they say, and all of us have 'seperate but equal' understandings of the event. To disagree with a perspective is one thing, to denouce it's value is narrow and in my opinion, an easy way out for something that is difficult to deal with (the idea of art within death and destruction).

For now the truth is a work in progress...

I cannot answer about the degree of truth used in the protrayal. Of course, this is a tantalizing question, but I feel that one should take this story for what it is, i.e. : a piece of fiction grounded on reality. What is interesting is the partial anchoring in some sort of reality to make the story sound realistic. But despite the welter of detail (physical, logistical, psychological), the short story remains a piece of imagination, clearly, and is meant to be read as such (who could know what happened in Atta's mind before killing the stewardesses, or at the moment of death, those seconds experienced as an eternity of pain)? What is obvious is that the text moves well beyond the strictly realistic to achieve an emblematic value, hence a general import. It is confusing, because Atta, seen from within, is a man like many others (the point is to make us share his intimacy). This is all a way of putting to the fore the notion of accountability: Atta's, the Sheik's, etc. The intent is moral/deontic. The genre is satire. The pragmatic effect is make us share some sort of nausea.

I found particularly interesting, Amis’ description of equivalency between the terrorists and firefighters. Both seeking the epitome of bravery; that hope of risking or giving ones life for honor. Desiring to shrug off the “I” or “You” and commit to an unfettering “We”. Could we possibly describe the work of firefighters as a beautiful art form? If we can, and this equivalency be possible, then it may be possible to view the display of ideals, that which the terrorists have submitted to, as an art form as well. This relates well to the ‘core reason’ that Amis reiterates, and which I continually asked myself the meaning of, which he simply states in the conclusion; ‘…the war-cycles that would flow from this day’ and observably, have been achieved. The art form is an expression of emotions, in this case a strong message.

This hugely public event, which was rightly seen as a cheap strike against our vulnerabilities, put our President in a hard situation. ‘And subsequently we ask, Who is with us? Who is against us?’(Butler,7) This move can be attributed to the nationalist fervor, the steps of mourning we were going through, in the aftermath of September 11th. But, by forcing this binarism it has choked out dissent of government policy. Democracy relies on the ability to question government policy. How we continue to act on the world scene will ultimately decide whether nationalism was the right choice.

I found Amis to be a very fluid writer that captivated moments and lent a deeper view of the lead up to 9/11. Butler has many great points but I feel paints a very idealistic picture of how a human should react to tragedies which cause mourning and subsequent violence. But I am glad she addressed the ‘publicly grievable losses’ versus lives lost to other ‘unmarkable and ungrievable’ world events. (Butler, 35) Guiliani refused the relief check from the Saudi Prince who expressed condolences for lives lost and simply asked for a more balance view on the Israel/Palestine conflict. A balanced view could help curb Islamic Extremism. I couldn’t believe the part about the newspaper keeping out the memorial of Palestinians lost in the conflict at the moment. Are they not grievable losses? If we stopped and grieved all losses, would there still be possibility for progress?

These definitely were some readings that made me think about different ideas.

-Drew

In Lentricchia's Terror and Art, I was reminded of the way our culture reacted to 9/11 starting with the President saying that we should buy things and go on vacation after 9/11.

"If George Bush is right that we should show patriotism by going on vacation and spending money, then visiting Groundzeroland is a patriotic act. The sublime power of American consumer culture to absorb and commodify even such a devastating blow as this transgressive act of destruction and murder is final proof of that culture's fundamental indestructability" (Lentricchia, 16).

I find it so interesting that American culture has become so warped that instead of calling for open discussion and grieving, we resorted to shopping as a coping technique. Again, this comes back to the question: who profits? The people affected by 9/11? Or the business executives?

When reading Amis' piece of historical fiction there are a number of concerns that I find myself questioning; specifically from the stand point of a writer.

1. There is a level of self-loathing apparent in Atta, one which manifests in his general characteristics as well as how he views the world. To this end, why is it that he can so believe in the cause if, as the story suggests, he believes only in oblivion. Another way to ask this is, what (besides a 'spectacular' suicide) is in this for him?

2. This is kind of a nit-picky question: How is it that he could abstain from emptying his bowls for six months? Merely from the POV of a reader that makes this story rather unbelievable.

3. What is Volvic and what is its significance?

4. The firefighter reference, comparing them to terrorists, is this more the author's sense of irony or is it meant to create a tangible and legitimate connection between the two? What is the author's reason for this?

Despite these few questions, I did find this piece enjoyable if a little unsettling. His character is one of morbid restraint, set apart from the world for reasons of his own creation that are beyond his own comprehension. This dark and at times disturbing story is definitely something I would want to revisit later.

--A.d.McKay

Volvic is a brand of mineral water which is made in the region of Auvergne, in the center of France.
See: http://www.volvic.ch/fr/index.php

I guess you could say I was intrigued by Amis' portrayal of Muhammad Atta and his last days. I still find it very weird that we could be making up stories about what could have possibly occured on 9/11 and the previous days, considering there are still so many untold stories of actual occurences. While reading it was hard not to think about how much of what I was reading is true and the idea that we will never know exactly what happened is still odd to me. To go along with this thought I find Amis' wording throughout the story very interesting especially when he expresses how Muhammad Atta felt, it is almost like Amis was putting himself in Atta's position. I felt it hard to even read this story because to me it just seemed so unreal considering that no one knew what Atta truly went through while Amis' adds details such as "he cut his lower lip for the first time that day," which is most definitely something that Amis' made up. To conclude I still find anything I read about September 11th to be extremely intriguing, but in the same sense I still question what we discuss frequently in class, is it too soon or what is appropriate? I am still not sure how I feel on this issue, but I do know that I would rather read testimonials from people who survived than fictional pieces, such as this story, because to me testimonials have a lot more meaning.

Also -- Butler's discussion of Freud's _Mourning and Melancholia_ was pretty thoughtful in terms of how a nation might mourn. Can we, as a nation, only move on from 9/11 after we have a substitute for the towers?

Can all of this post-9/11 literature be viewed as a substitute?

Butler’s chapter _Indefinite Detention_ was, I thought, an appropriate blending of theory and practice. Her rendering of the happenings at Guantanamo Bay and concurrent reworking of Foucault made the chapter quite thought-provoking.

Throughout almost the whole chapter, I couldn’t help but think of Kafka’s “The Trial.” But most especially when she wrote: “If these trials make a mockery of evidence, if they are, effectively, ways of circumventing the usual legal demands for evidence, then these trials nullify the very meaning of the trial, and they nullify the trial most effectively by taking on the name of the ‘trial’” (Butler 69).

What if the current situation at Guantanamo Bay ends just like “The Trial”?

Another prevalent theme in Amis’ short story was boredom. I really enjoyed his re-enactment of the questions asked at the airport. Especially the irony of Atta giving a suspicious answer, that is merely laughed at as a joke.

But I also saw this theme of boredom in the documentary “9/11.” If you recall, the new fireman was constantly at the house, bored, just “waiting for a fire.”

Also – Zizek claims that our true “catastrophe” is living our mundane lives under the permanent threat of catastrophe. That, somehow, with all the terrible things that have happened to us, we can still be bored with the world.

Just something to think/talk about.

I am afraid I am going to repeat some of the things I have already mentioned in individual messages, but I do believe one should try not to take the documentary approach to this short story, or at least not exclusively. I am not sure that, to quote Jillian, "testimonials have a lot more meaning". Their meaning is different or cannot be worked out according to the same criteria as the meaning of a work of fiction. Of course, there is a plausible evocation of a context, and of course some details are verifiable. But there is too much taste for hyperbole for the realistic aspect not to be jarred (that is what Andrew points out as regards the inordinately long period of constipation -- to put it quite literally -- which together with the Holy Volvic bit, is a piece of pure decrowning/debunking of the institutional uses of religion and belongs to a very long tradition in some Christian traditions -- I am thinking of the Roman Catholic confession here).

Secondly, I am not sure that (pace Andrew) Muhammad Atta really believes in the cause. There is textual evidence that he has seen through the Sheik's lies and some dogmatic obfuscation (I am referring to the Virgin/raisin episode). This is why M. Atta is such a complex figure in this text, a figure that hovers somewhere on the dividing line between humanity and monstrosity. Hence the strong destabilisation performed on the reader, this being buttressed by the internal focalisation and unmediated access to the protagonist's thought content. The target is less Muhammad Atta than the fundamentalist position he is conditioned into espousing.

Justine has pinpointed a central teme; i.e. : boredom. In this context it is less some sort of metaphysical ennui than, paradoxically, a motor of urgency and narrative countdown.