A member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) waves the terror organisation’s flag | Reuters
There is also a heightened intensity to the plot, tone and language early on that can feel overdone; the speed and passion with which the romance between Aneeka and Eamonn develops, for example, fails to ring true (“And then her mouth was on his … Everything he wanted in the world right here, right now, this woman, this life, this completeness.”)
What these devices do achieve, though, is remarkably effective pacing. There is an exciting speed to the first few sections and, in return for some breathless prose, we are rewarded with forward action and just enough suspense to transport us straight through to the payoff — the finest section, the last, told from Karamat’s point of view.
This is where incredibly intelligent conceptualising and execution on Shamsie’s part shine through. The political is messy; the personal is messy too. And when the two come together, moral, ethical and interpersonal complexity is the reader’s reward.
Karamat is torn in a million different directions: his responsibility as home secretary to keep the country safe, his loyalties as a father and husband, his calculations about the political payoffs of various moves he might make, and even, at times, his suppressed sentimentality about a culture, community and language he has distanced himself from in order to become British in the way he thinks immigrants should. “He cupped his hands together,” Shamsie describes him as he hides in a safe room during a terrorism alert, “like a man about to pray or a father cradling his infant son’s head. Or a politician examining the lines of his palm.” In this last section of the novel, she expertly weaves Karamat’s various motivations into and across each other so that his personal and political loyalties change, waver and clash as he tries to determine the fate of the citizenship of Parvaiz and Aneeka.
While this section is the highlight, throughout the novel it is complexity of motivation that works best. Parvaiz’s radicalisation is driven not by his politics or lack of economic prospects. It is driven primarily by wanting to discover the father he never knew, and by feeling emasculated in a home run by women far more competent than him. Refracted though his personal demons, his politics and moral framework remain unclear and inconsistent. Isma, toughened by having to become the adult in the family, tries to play the parent even as she yearns for the closeness she knows Aneeka and Parvaiz share. She is bold enough to approach Eamonn when she first sees him, but too scared (or confused) to confess how she feels about him. She can be matter of fact on the surface, but is racked by fear and insecurity. Eamonn is mainly weak or at least naive, easily swayed by his father and Aneeka. But he redeems himself to some extent with his earnest one-percenter do-gooder-ness and the bold action he takes at the end to try to save Aneeka.
It is Aneeka, though, the novel’s heroine, who isn’t rounded out; her passion and single-mindedness can be both dull and exhausting. Even at her most distraught, she barely has qualms or second-guesses herself, and this intensity weakens the prose as well. Passages such as those describing her seamless, seductive moves from a prayer mat to Eamonn’s bed, her grief at Parvaiz’s fate, or her protest against Karamat staged in Pakistan, can feel overly dramatic, a quality that flows from the one-dimensionality of Aneeka’s character in those moments.
At its most effective and memorable, though, Home Fire mines the richest of political and personal material, grappling with the moral, ethical and emotional complexity of characters struggling with what it means to belong to a lover, to a family, and above all, to a nation.
This was originally published in the Herald's October 2017 issue. To read more subscribe to the Herald in print.
The writer is a former assistant editor for the daily Dawn as well as the Herald.