I have never come across a work of fiction that is less propelled by plot.

In A Spider's House, all the so-called "action"实则 consists of social commentary.

It delves into how Westerners and Muslims perceive each other, highlighting the disparities in their outlooks on life.

It also explores the mind games that people engage in.

While such subject matter could potentially serve as the foundation for an intriguing play, it fails miserably as a novel.

The lack of a compelling plot makes it difficult for readers to become fully invested in the story.

There is no sense of anticipation or excitement as one progresses through the pages.

Instead, it feels more like a dry and academic exploration of social issues.

As a result, A Spider's House falls short of what one would expect from a great work of fiction.

An uneven marriage of fable and character study, "The Spider's House" is Bowles's third book. It reads more like a first book with a central character standing in for the author, much personal philosophy discussion, a flabby structure, and being overwhelmed by a story too rooted in symbolism. This doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad book. It's better than his fourth and final novel but not as good as his first two or many of his short stories. There are acute insights into the main characters, John Stenham and Amar, and well-crafted passages, but these can't save the book entirely.

The story starts like a Graham Greene espionage novel, with Stenham escorted to a Moroccan hotel amid political unrest. There are elements of such a novel, like expatriates and travelers in an isolated hotel as political rebellion turns violent. There's an escape from and sneaking back into the city, threatening thugs, and a love affair made exciting by life threats.

However, this is a Bowles story, and his primary interest isn't politics. The problem is that it's not clear what his main interest is, and the book seems to serve too many purposes. After a prologue focused on Stenham, the novel turns to a long section on Amar, a devout Moslem adolescent chafing against French subjugation and desiring vengeance. This section has no real backbone and long paragraphs. It feeds back into Stenham's story, who is a stand-in for Bowles, an American writer in love with North African culture but realizing it's changing.

The story then catches up with the prologue. The two Brits are mostly scenery and disappear. The weak attraction between Stenham and Lee is a set-up for later. There are some insights into Stenham as Bowles deconstructs his beliefs, but the characters remain flat. The stories merge, and Lee, Stenham, and Amar leave Fez as violence becomes unbearable. Amar makes his way back to the city, where he confronts nationalists and realizes the worthlessness of vengeance. The ending proceeds only on a symbolic level, with Stenham leaving Amar on the side of the road in service of the fable, making it an awkward ending to an awkward book.

One could approach the reading of this novel from multiple perspectives. It could be seen as Paul Bowles' critique of his own orientalist yearnings for Moroccan transhistorical "primitivism".

Alternatively, it might be regarded as a fictionalized portrayal of the inception of the Moroccan revolution.

Moreover, it can offer a far more superior, intricate, and critical examination of the "clash of civilizations" thesis.

It could also be read as a novel about a foolish American man in pursuit of a rather petulant American woman.

In addition, when considered in conjunction with Edward Said's Orientalism, it becomes a novel about tourism and travel.

Furthermore, it can be an attempt to fathom Islam or a parable satirizing liberal misgivings regarding post-WWII third world nationalist movements, modernization, and Marxism.

I believe it is feasible to read it in all these ways simultaneously and delight in the prose, its sharpness, and its wit.

However, for all its merits, it falls short as a political endeavor. Precisely because it is not advisable to read a white man's self-centered account of white tourists during a revolution (or a white man's "channelling" of an Arab youth). Instead, one should turn to the novels penned by Moroccans that tell the true story of these events.

This way, a more accurate and nuanced understanding can be achieved, rather than relying solely on the perspective of an outsider.

It has been approximately two years since I delved into the pages of this book. As a result, I won't go into excessive detail regarding the plot. Instead, I will share some of my profound impressions of the book.

This remarkable work was penned around 1956 - 58 by Paul Bowles, an American author who spent the majority of his adult life residing in Morocco. Unsurprisingly, the book is set in Morocco on the eve of the revolution where the Moroccans triumphed in winning their independence from France. The story simultaneously follows a young Moroccan and an American author, vividly depicting the events that unfold when their paths intersect.

Bowles writes in a rather straightforward, almost journalistic style, painting a decidedly unsympathetic portrait of his characters. The book ultimately revolves around the contrasting values of the Moroccan people and their yearning for sovereignty, as opposed to those of the westerners depicted in the story who long to see the "charms" of colonial Morocco remain intact, an outcome highly unlikely under self-rule. The author's third-person voice and unemotional delivery effectively convey the conflict between these cultures, granting the reader ample space to form an informed opinion, even with minimal or no prior knowledge of Moroccan history.

The story lacks the outlandish plot twists like those found in Vonnegut's works, is decidedly not as romantic as Fitzgerald's, and doesn't require you to adopt a funny accent while reading it, unlike "Trainspotting". Nor is it a particularly rapid read. However, it is an engaging and thought-provoking book that will simultaneously immerse you intimately in an exotic (and beautiful) locale while gently and subtly nudging you to consider an ethical and socio-political stance that you likely haven't contemplated before, all without coming across as overly preachy. On this final point, Bowles earns my utmost respect for executing this literary balancing act with near-perfection.

What a delight it is to read a work by Paul Bowles for the very first time.

Paul Bowles (1910 - 1999) was an incredibly talented composer and writer. In 1947, he settled in Tangier, Morocco, and remained there until his death.

His profound knowledge of the Moroccan people, their mentality, and what it means to be a foreigner abroad is vividly portrayed in his third novel, The Spider's House (1955). The book commences with two distinct stories. One is told from the perspective of a young, illiterate Moroccan boy named Amar. He is the son of a traditional healer and views the world solely through the "Moslem" lens. For instance, as he rationalizes,

If you could not have freedom, you could still have vengeance, and that was all anyone really wanted now. Perhaps, he thought, vengeance was what Allah wished His people to have, and by inflicting punishment on unbelievers the Moslems would merely be imposing divine justice.

The other story is presented from the viewpoint of an American expatriate in Fez named Stenham. He socializes with a diverse group of foreigners in the city, and they hold varying opinions about Morocco, the French colonizers, and the future of this country in the northwestern corner of the African continent. Some of Stenham's friends support the French, while others, like Polly, an American woman, are passionate supporters of the Moroccan independence movement (Istiqlal) and believe that the Moroccans are entitled to the same rights as Americans and those in the rest of the West. Stenham is irritated by Polly's idealism. He loves Morocco for its land and its society, which is so different from the West. He fears that independence will drastically transform the Morocco he has fallen in love with.

Halfway through the book, the paths of Amar and Stenham converge. Fez is in the midst of an insurrection, and that's when the story becomes truly suspenseful. Will Amar's and Stenham's worlds collide violently, or will they find a way to coexist? Will they both survive the violence that is rampant in the city? I found this part of the book extremely interesting. Unfortunately, the ending left me a bit unsatisfied. However, there is no doubt that Paul Bowles was far ahead of his time when he wrote about the culture clash between the West and the Islamic world. And when I read the news about the Middle East today, it seems that not much has changed.

The major portion of this book, which accounts for the first 80%, is truly an utterly enchanting meditation on an exotic land, namely Morocco. It delves deep into the contrasts between the archaic and modernity that coexist within this captivating place. The writing throughout this section is nothing short of brilliant, painting vivid pictures and evoking a plethora of emotions in the reader.

However, the final part of the story unfortunately either wobbled or, in my personal view, just completely collapsed. It seems as if Bowles, the author, simply didn't know how to neatly resolve the story that he had so meticulously constructed. This flaw does somewhat detract from the overall experience.

Nevertheless, if one can manage to overlook this shortcoming, reading this book will still prove to be enormously rewarding. It offers a unique perspective on Morocco and its rich tapestry of cultures and traditions, as well as a thought-provoking exploration of the tensions between the old and the new.

This is not the book to read before a trip to Morocco.

Bowles' portrayal of the politics and character of the Moroccan people during their fight for independence from French is rather bleak. He presents a rather negative view, painting a picture that might not be entirely representative.

All of his characters, including the foreign tourists, seem to be calculating, deceitful, and distrusting. Their actions are often perplexing, making it hard for the reader or listener to follow the story, especially when it is presented as an audiobook.

However, Bowles does have some interesting cultural observations. He offers insights into the Moroccan culture that might be valuable. But unfortunately, he overindulges in lengthy debates on what Morocco should be. This detracts from the overall narrative and makes the book a bit of a slog to get through.

Perhaps a different book would be a better choice for those looking to gain a more accurate and engaging understanding of Morocco before their trip.

An interesting perspective into 1950's Fes and non-French Expats living in Morocco offers a fascinating glimpse into a bygone era. As I delved into the text, I frequently found myself reflecting on Edward Said's Orientalism. The author, perhaps like Bowles, painted diverse pictures of Morocco and its people. Amar, in particular, seems to be a representative figure in this regard.

Compared to "Sheltering Sky," this read felt more contextually rich and descriptive. It provided a more detailed exploration of the lives and experiences of the non-French Expats in Fes during the 1950s. However, I still find myself grappling with my true feelings about it. There are aspects that intrigue me, while others leave me with a sense of uncertainty.

I plan to take a few days to further reflect on this work. Maybe with more time and thought, I will be able to form a more definitive opinion. I look forward to updating my thoughts once I have had the opportunity to process it all.

Loved this book.

There were a few short sections between an American man (a writer similar to the author) and an American woman (a beautiful traveler) that became a bit tiresome, but otherwise it was almost perfect. It's the first work by Paul Bowles that I've read. I was in search of books set in Morocco, and this story, which is set in Fes in 1955, was of particular interest as Bowles lived in Morocco from 1947 until his death in 1999.

A significant portion of the book (at least one-third) is told from the perspective of an Arab-Moroccan teenager named Amar. This seemed truly remarkable to me as it was highly convincing, multi-layered, and complex, despite the fact that Amar is not only young but also completely illiterate. His father, a religious scholar, sent Amar to school when he was young, but Amar rebelled so stubbornly that his father gave up and let him be. Like any teenage boy (before the era of video games), Amar spends as little time as possible at home. As he wanders the streets, hangs out with friends, and works in a potter's shop, he makes astute observations about the actions and motives of those around him. These are influenced by his confident and unwavering sense of religious right and morality, which he seemingly developed through osmosis in his family home, as he doesn't go to the mosque or pray. However, God is a constant and unwavering presence in his life, and he never questions his own certainty about right and wrong, even when he chooses to do what he knows is wrong. In other words, his worldview is firmly rooted in Islam, but he is far from being devout.

The other main characters are the two Americans. The man has lived in Morocco long enough to become quite fluent in Arabic. The woman is one of those travelers with money that we often encounter in books, not wealthy enough to live well at home but affluent enough to stay in hotels abroad. She is completely new to Morocco and northern Africa, and her attitudes conflict with those of the man. This begins well but eventually leads to the tedious parts I mentioned earlier.

Entirely separate from these characters, the Moroccan independence party, the Istiqlal, is working hard to incite the people to rebel against the French Protectorate. This effort reaches a dangerous climax, and the effects on Amar and the two Americans form the second half of the book.

Of course, the author was an outsider, neither Moroccan nor Muslim, and I can't claim to be able to determine whether his depictions are accurate or imaginative — but I'm certain there are many truths here, and I also believe that in Amar, Bowles was attempting to come to terms with what he knew and what he guessed about the worldview of many Moroccans at that time. As Francine Prose points out in the Introduction, this is of great importance in the context of our world today, when radical Islamist extremists plague the world with violence and chaos. Even though I read her Introduction after finishing the book, I had many of the same thoughts while reading about Amar's views regarding the French and other Western people. He didn't want to kill them, but so much about them deeply offended him. At the same time, he was attracted to the Americans. This deep contradiction was a captivating aspect of the story.

In Spider's House, Paul Bowles takes a departure from the moral teachings often associated with interfering Americans. Instead, he decides to truly focus on the events unfolding in Morocco. Set during the country's revolution against the French, the story weaves together two distinct strands. One follows an illiterate yet intelligent native boy, while the other traces the experiences of an American novelist (along with his various cohorts at different times) who has been living in Morocco for the past five years.

The book reaches its zenith when told from the perspective of the Moroccan boy. He is a captivating and one-of-a-kind character, simultaneously a product of his culture and yet independent from it, much like the very best literary characters. While the American's story provides the backdrop and context for the revolution, it falls short as it presents a rather tired and familiar narrative.

However, the most fascinating aspect of this story is that everyone is flawed. The book is rife with misconceptions, misunderstandings, and blatant biases. No one escapes Bowles' critical eye, as even the kindest and most generous individuals are shown to have their share of shortcomings and inaccuracies.

For those who adored The Sheltering Sky, this novel might not have the same appeal. While the first novel evoked the harsh and spare beauty of the Sahara sun, this one is deeply immersed in the rich and layered atmosphere of Fez, lacking the same sense of clarity. It is muddled, much like the complex and often confused nature of people. In my opinion, it is a better book, although many may disagree.

Paul Bowles In The Spider's House

Paul Bowles (1910 -- 1999), an American composer and writer, expatriated to Tangier in 1947. His third novel, titled from a Koran verse, has a strong political element unlike his famous "The Sheltering Sky". Set in Fez, Morocco in 1954, it deals with the political upheaval against French colonialists. The French had replaced a resistant Sultan in 1953, and in 1954, the Istiqlal led a rebellion that was more nationalist than religious, with communist components.

The novel is subtle, perceptive, and complex but hard to follow. It has many characters, including religious Moslems, Istiqlal leaders, and expatriates. The two main characters are John Stenham, an American author similar to Bowles, and Amar, an illiterate but gifted Moslem adolescent. A third important character is Polly (Lee) Burroughs, an American tourist.
The book's organization and scope are wandering. It starts confusingly and the opening scene is not explained until mid-book. The early chapters focus on Amar and traditional Moslem practice, then shift abruptly to a hotel frequented by expatriates. In the final sections, Amar is brought together with the expatriates against a background of increasing violence.
Although the book doesn't hold together well as a novel, it is thought-provoking and worthwhile. The writing and descriptions are often beautiful. It explores Morocco's troubled nature in overthrowing colonial rule and the causes of the rebellion. The strongest passages are when the characters talk and try to understand each other and the introspective soliloquies.
The book offers insight into the Moroccan rebellion and has topical relevance to events in the Middle East. However, there is a danger in pushing historical parallels too far. Like Bowles' earlier novels, it is a work of introspection by a skeptic and outsider. It is a difficult, moving work available in paperback and in a collection of his first three novels.

Excellent, excellent book. Bowles sets the story in Fes, Morocco during the struggle for independence from France. I'm currently living in Fes, so it had an added interest to me. Bowles lived in Tangier for over half of his life, which made him well acquainted with the Moroccan culture. He brilliantly uses different viewpoints - a local Muslim, a resident American, and a tourist American - to analyze different perspectives on the struggle.

The Fes resident, a committed Muslim, views his hatred for the infidels (in this case, the French) as ordained and approved by Allah. He has a deterministic and resigned view of life, believing that everything has been written beforehand by Allah and is His will.

The resident American loves Fes, at least for what it used to be. He is cynical about any attempts to change it, whether by the French or the resistance party. He knows Fes will never be able to return to its "magical" past and thus hates both sides in the struggle.

The tourist American is firmly committed to the idea of progress. To her, modernity is inevitable, and resisting the change that even the French are trying to bring foreshadows the death of that culture.

But the book is also about change. Each character slowly shifts their perspective on the struggle as they meet people who don't fit into their preconceived categories.

I don't want to throw the term "masterpiece" around lightly, but this certainly comes close. By never providing a resolution to the book's questions, he forces the reader to question what "progress" really is. Is modernity always a good thing? Shouldn't destructive patterns of life, however traditional, be eliminated wherever we find them? Isn't that in the people's best interest? After all, if they knew what they were missing, they would ask for it, right?

But Bowles isn't satisfied with surface answers. He convincingly shows how each perspective and each person's answers are inescapably tied to one's worldview. His psychological analysis is gripping and beautiful to read. I highly recommend this book.