Character Study in Home Fire and We The Animals

In the beginning of Home Fire by Kamila Shamsie and We The Animals by Justin Torres, Shamsie’s Parvaiz and Torres’ unnamed narrator have strong relationships with their siblings, turning to them for comfort and guidance. These bonds are strengthened by the absence of a reliable father figure. The minor characters, Farooq in Home Fire and the Headbanger in We The Animals, are both older, male friend figures who use knowledge as a means to power. The Headbanger draws a wedge between the narrator and his brothers after introducing them to gay pornography. His significance as a character stems from the way he affects the narrator’s relationship with his brothers. Although the Headbanger is a peripheral character who only appears in one scene, his character is pivotal to the ending of the novel. Similarly, Farooq isolates Parvaiz from his sisters, but he plays a more significant role in Home Fire, as he is present over a longer period of time. The narrator’s descriptions of the white trash world of the Headbanger suggest that his social class makes him inferior in the larger societal context. This indicates that the Headbanger manipulates the boys to enhance his own sense of superiority, which he would be unable to obtain elsewhere, but does not intentionally isolate the narrator. Farooq however, wants more than just superiority; he wants complete control over Parvaiz. He systematically deconstructs Parvaiz’ psyche with regard to desire in order to purposefully isolate him and establish his complete dependency. 

Prior to meeting Farooq, Parvaiz received limited information about the masculinized world his father inhabited. Farooq is a jihadi, who fought alongside Parvaiz’ father, Adil Pasha. Parvaiz idolizes Adil Pasha, based on the stories he had been told about his bravery in battle. Farooq feels connected to Parvaiz and wants to educate him about his father, in the hopes of recruiting him to join ISIS. Parvaiz had always been interested in learning about his father, but he could never admit this because his family has always treated their father as something shameful. This disconnect from his father’s world causes him to struggle with his sense of self. Farooq provides Parvaiz’ with three forms of knowledge related to Adil Pasha that enable Parvaiz to explore his own identity: the history of the Muslim world, masculine interpretations of the Quran, and facts about his father’s life. Shamsie states that “There didn’t seem to be any part of the Muslim World Farooq didn’t know about…,” characterizing him as intellectually superior (Shamsie 131). Farooq’s account of Muslim history is written as a single run-on sentence, the syntax paralleling his ample knowledge. Additionally, Farooq didactically explains that “men are in charge of women…” in the Quran (132). This is new to Parvaiz, as his understanding of Islam is based in the female dominated world of his childhood. Lastly, Farooq supplies Parvaiz with information about his father. Unlike his siblings who detest their father, Parvaiz is “adrift and haunted...by his father’s legacy” (NY Times). Parvaiz’ opinion of his father is unsolidified, as he is dually appalled by his actions and drawn to his father’s “heroism,” feeling a responsibility as the only son that does not pertain to his sisters (137). Farooq’s teachings enable Parvaiz to ground his identity in his father’s world, which later will later deeply upset his sisters.

In We The Animals, the Headbanger provides the narrator and his brothers with gay pornographic films. The Headbanger is two years older than Manny, and lives in the neighboring world of the “white-trash boys” (Torres 90). It is likely that both he and the boys misinterpret these videos as accurate portrayals of gay sex, due to the ignorance linked with youth. He derives power from being the first person to expose the children to sex that is violent, objectifying and disturbing.  The narrator states that “Our Paps didn’t truck in pornography,” establishing the Headbanger as the sole provider of this information (95). Similarly to the way Farooq’s information helps Parvaiz make sense of his identity, the pornography sparks the narrator’s awareness of his homosexuality. The Headbanger assumes his superiority in this relationship by providing the boys with information they cannot access elsewhere.

The Headbanger maintains this position of dominance by dehumanizing the boys. Torres describes the Headbanger “walk[ing] down the middle of the street swinging a flashlight at his side,'' while the boys remain “crouched at the woods’ end” (89). This contrasting imagery develops the power hierarchy both literally and metaphorically, as the boys’ physical position is compared to woodland creatures. The Headbanger’s flashlight is also a symbol of power in the darkness. He looks at them and states “three dogs on a log,'' which simultaneously dehumanizes them and characterizes them as a collective (89). Through demeaning language, the Headbanger appears superior. He does this so they value his company, providing him with the connection he craves. The narrator then says that the Headbanger “joined [them] on the log, dogged with us” (89). The narrator adopts the Headbanger’s language, demonstrating the internalization of the imbalanced power dynamics. The kinesthetic imagery of the Headbanger sitting down on the log equalizes the balance of power, as they are now physically on the same level. The Headbanger’s language shift from “boys” to “dogs” to “fellas,” progresses from demeaning to affectionate (89). The shift in diction affirms the belief that the Headbanger’s goal in this scene is companionship.

Farooq’s goal is to recruit Parvaiz into ISIS, which causes him to follow a more systematic process of manipulation that also begins with dehumanization. Shamsie characterizes Farooq as the orchestrator within their relationship, giving himself the ability to nurture Parvaiz and step into a paternal role. The physical pain Parvaiz endures in the torture scene is so extreme that he is convinced he is going to die. In this moment, Parvaiz loses all sense of agency and is as powerless as a newborn. After the violence is over, “the only response Parvaiz had was tears” (140). In this quote, Parvaiz is reduced to an infant, who is completely reliant on his parents and only able to express his feelings through tears. Farooq then inserts himself as the caretaker, handing Parvaiz ice cream, who proceeds to “lick every clinging bit of ice cream off the stick” (140). The visual imagery mirrors a baby suckling on his mother’s breast, as he is dependent on Farooq for nourishment. When Farooq stands up to leave “Parvaiz reache[s] out and [holds] his leg” (140). The kinesthetic imagery reveals his desperation and childlike fear that Farooq will disappear. He grasps for any part of Farooq’s body, like a child clings onto a father. Not only does he crave basic necessities, but he craves the sense of safety that is associated with a parent-child relationship.

After establishing himself as a father figure, Farooq reconditions Parvaiz’ psyche, causing him to crave pain. Parvaiz’s familial relationships are characterized by affection, so Farooq wanted him to crave something his siblings do not provide, such as physical torment. Farooq’s knowledge of Adil Pasha is enough to convince Parvaiz that experiencing pain is necessary for him to truly understand his father. After Parvaiz is tortured Farooq states, “Now you begin to see” (140). The simplicity of this syntax combined with a lack of detail parallels the idea that language is not sufficient to connect Parvaiz to his father; it must occur through the shared experience of torture. Farooq not only rewards him with physical affection, but provides him with emotional validation, in the repeated quote “my brave warrior” (143). The diction associated with war affirms Parvaiz’ desire for a connection with his father, the “jester-warrior” (130). At this point, Parvaiz has placed all of his trust in Farooq, relying on him solely to fulfill both his emotional and physical needs. 

Farooq’s strategy to tear down Parvaiz in order to reshape his psyche proves successful when Parvaiz begins to isolate himself from his family. While he is not comfortable talking about his father to his siblings, he feels proud of his connection to his father around Farooq. Parvaiz ask Aneeka why she chooses to study law when it was responsible for their father’s death. When she probes him further, he retreats stating “you’re just a girl. You don’t understand,” revealing the effect of Farooq’s teachings on his disposition (144). His dismissive diction mirrors the condescending tone Farooq employs when mentioning women. Whereas he used to confide exclusively in Aneeka, Parvaiz now feels misunderstood by her. When Aneeka and him get into a fight regarding Isma’s move to America he allows “the wound to fester,” instead of acting as he normally would and “exhaust[ing] [himself] into reconciliation” (135). He wanted to wait until he could tell Farooq and “receive the antiseptic of his new friend’s indignation” (135). This medical metaphor makes it seem as if Parvaiz’ health is entirely dependent on Farooq, which is a purposeful exaggeration of the power dynamics between them.

Farooq replaces both Isma, who raised Parvaiz, and Aneeka, who provided him with emotional support, in becoming the sole parental figure in Parvaiz’ life. Parvaiz’ shift in character is revealed most when he tells Farooq to “tie him again. [He] want[s] to feel his father’s pain” (143). This is the first time issues a command to Farooq. Parvaiz mistakenly believes this desire for pain is his own, whereas it is the intended result of Farooq’s indoctrination. Farooq has successfully altered Parvaiz’ psyche by restructuring it around a new set of morals and desires. 

Although the Headbanger does not intentionally isolate the narrator from his siblings in We The Animals, he divides them by introducing them to gay pornography. In the middle of the pornographic film, the narrator states “wasn’t no one to stop this. My brothers. Wasn’t no one” (96). The truncated sentences and repetition of “wasn’t no one” work in conjunction to contribute to a tone of urgency and desperation. This quote contrasts the narrator’s frequent use of “we” in the text in reference to him and his brothers. Even though he sits beside his brothers, his experience of watching and interpreting the film is very much his own. The narrator is accustomed to sharing experiences with his brothers, but here the experience is strictly individual. Torres leaves this section ambiguous, but he suggests that the narrator is both attracted to the film and repulsed by his attraction. He looks to his brothers for relief, and when they do not look back, he asks “Why won’t you look at me, my brothers, why won’t you take my eyes?” (97). Torres leaves the answer to this question again unclear, but it is likely that the siblings know the narrator is gay and refused to confront this knowledge. It also forces the narrator to acknowledge a difference between himself and his brothers, facilitating a sense of separation. Another possibility is that the boys are all aroused, which makes them uncomfortable in their hyper-masculine world. Regardless, it is a transitional moment for the narrator, who realizes that there are parts of his life that he will not be able to share with his siblings. This marks a permanent shift in his identity from a “we” to an “I”.

The male friendships developed in Home Fire and We The Animals subvert the typical expectations of masculine intimacy. The moments of revelation in regard to identity for both Parvaiz and the narrator cannot occur without their intimate bonds, grounded in vulnerability and trust. The absence of a father figure facilitates the formation of these relationships and makes Parvaiz and the narrator more willing to embrace any opportunity to fill their paternal voids. Both Farooq and Headbanger leverage different forms of abuse, which separate Parvaiz and the narrator respectively from their siblings and cause them to become emotionally dependent on these older male figures. In Home Fire, there is a profound focus on touch, and the way that physical abuse between the men establishes intimacy and dominance. In We The Animals, Torres’ explores how an older, more knowledgeable boy can develop relationships of intimacy with adolescent boys by being their only channel to the secret knowledge of adult sexuality. In literature, masculine and feminine relationships are normally characterized in opposition, touch and sentimentality as opposed to violence and hyper-masculinity. These books challenge those concepts by arguing that both types of relationships are grounded in physical and emotional connection.