Journal of Postcolonial Writing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpw20

Exclusion, empathy, and Islam: The Runaways in

the literary marketplace

Sauleha Kamal

To cite this article: Sauleha Kamal (2023): Exclusion, empathy, and Islam: The Runaways in the
literary marketplace, Journal of Postcolonial Writing, DOI: 10.1080/17449855.2023.2209906

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2023.2209906

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 30 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 260

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpw20
JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2023.2209906

Exclusion, empathy, and Islam: The Runaways in the literary

marketplace
Sauleha Kamal
University of York, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
With the location of the global literary marketplace in western cen­ Empathy; Islam; Fatima
tres, post-9/11 interest in anglophone Pakistani literature comes with Bhutto; literary marketplace;
the fetishization of minoritized identities. Fatima Bhutto’s The cosmopolitanism;
radicalization
Runaways combats Islamophobic arguments about the Islamic ori­
gins of radicalization, showing that it emerges out of exclusion
stemming from material facts of race, class, and gender. However,
the novel's place in the literary marketplace complicates Bhutto's
efforts to elicit empathy from readers. This article argues that
although The Runaways is ideologically opposed to Eurocentric cos­
mopolitan liberalism, it occasionally falters in its representation of
Pakistan and Islamic practices. The novel’s empathy is invested in
universalism, suggesting a blind spot which is attributable to the
global literary marketplace’s anticipation of a secular cosmopolitan
“elite” readership. Through analysis of Bhutto’s novel, this article
explores the possibility of productive empathy, and interrogates
the ethics of reading and writing the other.

There is a well-documented tendency amongst western readers to view novels about

Muslims as informative accounts. While this tendency spiked following Huntington’s
(1996) clash of civilizations thesis and in the wake of 9/11, it has its roots in early ideas
about supposed Muslim backwardness from the Middle Ages (Kahf 1999, 4–8). Before
the emergence of debates on world literature and the marketplace (Apter 2009; Mufti
2016; Brouillette 2007; Slaughter 2007; Huggan 2001), Gayatri C. Spivak (1985) identified
the tendency to read what was then referred to as “Third World literature” for insights
into the lives of the other as “information-retrieval” (235–236). More recently, Peter
Morey (2018, 6) has criticized this tendency to approach “non-Western literatures as
essentially anthropological in nature” in the current context of the Muslim novel. Given
the prevalence of this approach towards the anglophone Pakistani novel (Marlowe 2007,
n.p.; King 2007, 683–688), it is not surprising that novelists want to challenge this notion.
Fatima Bhutto’s (2018c) The Runaways, a timely and urgent tale of three teenagers who
enlist in an ISIS-like terrorist organization called the Ummah Movement, appears in the
post-9/11 sociopolitical landscape as what could be called a “literary response to
Islamophobia” (Morey 2018, 3), in that it subverts Islamophobic expectations of

CONTACT Sauleha Kamal Sauleha.kamal@york.ac.uk; sauleha.kamal@gmail.com Department of English and

Related Literature, University of York, Heslington, York Y010 5DD, UK
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 S. KAMAL

difference. The novel offers a nuanced look at its radicalized young protagonists, eschew­
ing the cliches that ordinarily characterize radicalization narratives.1
Indeed, The Runaways does not dwell on ideas of a clash of civilizations or oppressed
womanhood, or hold up visions of an idealized liberal cosmopolitanism. Instead, it offers
a secular explanation for radicalization, attributing it to exclusion, not religious fervour.
The novel contends that exclusion is tied to issues of identity and situated within existing
sociopolitical conditions. While the protagonists seem at first to be characterized by what
Chandra Mohanty (1988) called “Third World difference” – which flattens those in the
Global South into an oppressed monolith – the narrative makes it apparent that their
motivations are fundamentally human though they are placed in extraordinary circum­
stances. This appeal to a common human experience subverts Islamophobic and
Eurocentric expectations of fundamental difference but also attempts to generate empa­
thy from readers by means of a universalist approach. I argue that this focus on eliciting
empathy – “a vicarious, spontaneous sharing of affect” – from readers means the novel is
unable to completely escape the expectation of a secular western addressee (Keen
2007, 4). As a result, The Runaways is not just a useful attempt to disrupt reductive
narratives of difference. Rather, it raises awareness of the need to remain cognizant of the
politics of eliciting empathy for minoritized characters from primarily western readers.
The three teenage protagonists in The Runaways have vastly different origins but share
a sense of “unbelonging” due to their exclusion from society because of material condi­
tions including race, class, and gender. The first, Anita Rose, grows up in a minority
Christian community in a Karachi slum while her mother barely ekes out a living
working as a maalish wali (masseuse) at the homes of the wealthy. The second, Monty,
grows up on the other side of Karachi, shrinking under the scrutiny of his overbearing
father, an unscrupulous businessman from an extremely wealthy family. Finally, Sunny,
a Portsmouth teenager of Indian origin, experiences marginalization because of his race,
class, and sexuality. While Sunny’s immigrant father had left India for England to give his
son greater opportunities, his struggles fill Sunny with resentment for Britain’s exclu­
sionary attitudes. Crucially, the journeys of all three protagonists delink radicalization
from religion. However, instead of removing religion from the equation entirely, Bhutto
places it in context alongside the other factors that inform her characters’ worlds. As
such, The Runaways manages to sidestep any simplistic explanations for radicalization.
Among the themes the novel explores are identity (a postcolonial touchstone), belong­
ing/unbelonging, and witnessing/testimony, all of which are intimately connected to
debates on empathy and literature.

Exclusion and its discontents

The impact of the marketplace on the development of world literature and the post­
colonial novel is palpable. Indeed, the literary marketplace has a complicated relationship
with diversity as the expansion of publishers into the global market impacts the literature
produced (Brouillette 2007, 57–59; Slaughter 2007, 35; Huggan 2001, viii–ix).
Specifically, as Sarah Brouillette (2007, 58) has noted, the more that literature “associable
with specific national or ethnic identities” enters the market, the more that market can
justify its dominance through claims to “inclusivity and universality”. The market desires
literature that is identifiable with specific national or ethnic identities but also capable of
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 3

promoting a universalizing ethic. Postcolonial literature is burdened by the expectation

that it should satisfy this association in a way that appeals to readers in the Global North.
As a result, much of the writing that falls under the label of the postcolonial novel is now
defined by certain shared characteristics, as Brouillette identifies. Written in English,
such fiction is “politically liberal and suspicious of nationalism; it uses a language of exile,
hybridity, and ‘mongrel’ subjectivity” (61). These themes are identifiable in The
Runaways, and can be connected to the social positioning of its author.
The circumstances of the postcolonial author require particular scholarly attention
because the postcolonial author is transformed, “willingly or not, [into a] cultural
spokesperson” by the marketplace (Huggan 2001, 34). As a member of the prominent
political Bhutto family and a cosmopolitan literary celebrity educated in the US and UK,
Bhutto commands attention. If the postcolonial author is necessarily positioned as
a marketing tool, then someone of Bhutto’s background must have a particularly potent
utility (Brouillette 2007, 177). Certainly, it is easy to see a personal impetus behind the
themes of human suffering, belonging/unbelonging, and witnessing that define The
Runaways, considering that these concerns are also central to Bhutto’s (2010) memoir
and life as a public figure. The marketplace can present Bhutto as someone who can – to
borrow Timothy Brennan’s (1989) assertion about western-resident Indian writers –
provide novelty as well as cosmopolitan familiarity. It is also worth reflecting on the
relationship of class to the figure of the postcolonial author. In the recent resurgence of
debates about world literature as an elite commodity, Brouillette has called attention to
the “deceptively simple fact that reading and writing literature are elite activities”
(2015, 98).
While The Runaways exhibits the expected characteristics of cosmopolitan, politically
liberal, postcolonial fiction, Bhutto also attempts to critique inequality. She is careful to
home in on class tensions and religious discrimination. In an interview, Bhutto talks
about how she thinks Monty’s world of “privilege and comfort and ease [ . . . ] needs to be
investigated and questioned thoroughly” (2018b, n.p.). She adds that she wants to present
Monty’s and Anita’s worlds “as they are in conflict with each other, [as] they exist in great
tension to each other” (n.p.). Class and religion coexist in uncomfortable proximity:
where Anita’s – later called Layla – and Sunny’s religious backgrounds (Christianity and
Islam, respectively) minoritize and marginalize them, Monty’s family benefits from such
divisions. The first chapter juxtaposes Monty’s mother’s performative religiosity with the
history of their family wealth: Monty’s father has “made his money divvying up parcels of
the country’s promised land”, encouraging Parsis to sell prime real estate cheaply in the
post-Partition chaos and “fudging the papers of abandoned Hindu homes” (Bhutto
2018c, 55, 56). Religious identity, then, becomes a material condition that can either
further, or sabotage, material wealth.
Bhutto investigates radicalization through this novel to offer an explanation that shifts
the focus from unique, religious explanations towards shared aspects of the human
condition. While “Islamophobia fetishizes Islam as the cause and explanation of vio­
lence”, the novel pushes back by emphasizing factors that are grounded in personal life
experiences rather than religious beliefs (Morey 2018, 247). This shift allows for the novel
to invest in what Suzanne Keen (2007, 114) has termed “the possibility of universal
feelings shared by humankind” which carries with it “an optimistic program for trans­
cending cultural differences”. In interviews, Bhutto frames The Runaways as an exercise
4 S. KAMAL

in understanding the universal forces behind radicalization and extending empathy to its
victims. She offers:

People are not radicalized because they are Muslim or because they are Hindu or Christian.
People are radicalized because they are cast out to the peripheries of their societies and are
isolated. They are alienated and made to feel they are somehow different, that something
intrinsic about that society or nation doesn’t apply to them. [ .. .] It has very little to do with
religion. It has to do with power, with belonging, with loneliness and very much to do with
pain. (Bhutto 2018b, n.p.)

In making legible the universal feelings of alienation, loneliness, and pain these otherwise
different characters experience, Bhutto aims to inspire a shared affect in readers. She
articulates the novel–empathy connection clearly in a number of interviews (Bhutto
2008, 2018b, 2019). Most strikingly, answering a question about the biggest challenge
while writing The Runaways, Bhutto tweeted: “I thought a lot about [ . . . ] how you can
empathize with someone on a human level while disagreeing very strongly with their
actions and their impulses” (2018a, n.p.). In her desire to call attention to the possibility
of empathizing with different, even flawed, people, Bhutto is optimistic about the ethical
impact of empathy. This is also true of other novelists who connect novel reading with
empathy and intend to use their writing to draw the world’s attention to a problem (Keen
2007, 121, 140). Critiquing the problem of unequal material conditions, The Runaways
also describes the affects that arise from these conditions, such as the pain from
unbelonging, as universal feelings.
Since Bhutto aims to inspire empathy for her characters, it makes sense that she draws
on the conventions of the bildungsroman, a form that allows her to trace the trajectory of
their development. Bildungsroman scholars observe that the form documents the tension
between the individuality emerging from a culture of self-determination, and the socia­
lization that modern bourgeois society demands (Moretti 1985, 115). The postcolonial
Bildungsroman sees this tension as “intensified by the shadow of colonialism, [ . . . and]
widespread disenfranchisement” (Hoagland 2019, 220). The Runaways inherits this
intensification in its capturing of the devastating consequences of exclusion based on
sociopolitical events, prejudice against minorities, and their disenfranchisement.
Monty’s, Anita’s (Layla’s), and Sunny’s stories are ultimately doomed Bildungsromane
as they are unable to achieve the ideal of self-determination precisely because of reasons
related to unbelonging that result from their political circumstances. The novel insists
that it is not ideology or religion that drives these characters but universal human
impulses. Before they encounter and enact tangible violence, they each experience
different forms of psychological violence arising from their exclusion. In this, the novel
appears to say that the three are just like “us”, the readers, but their circumstances do not
allow them to develop their selves in productive and ethical ways. In subverting expecta­
tions by emphasizing these characters’ human desires and tying their exclusion to
material facts of race, class, and gender, this novel appears as a plea to extend empathy
to them, and to others like them.
The Runaways is preoccupied with inclusion and exclusion, including the desperation
borne out of the latter. Sunny initially faces exclusion because of his Indian, Muslim, and
working-class origins. He is subject to racial abuse growing up and, as a teenager,
experiences unbelonging based on his sexuality. At school, his wealthier crush Ben,
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 5

who is half-Pakistani and seeks to project a white, far-right identity, owing to his own
desire to belong, makes jokes about sleeper cells and texts Sunny “[e]xploding-bomb
emoji[s]” (Bhutto 2018c, 127). At home, his cousin Oz preys on Sunny’s desperation to
belong and recruits him into a terrorist organization, only to become a reformer himself.
In Oz’s propaganda, Sunny sees a chance to belong because it offers him an opportunity
to be part of something, a unity of “good brothers” who stand in opposition to an ideal of
assimilation from which they have been excluded (Bhutto 2018c, 141, 164, 166). There is
the sense that Oz’s efforts are successful because Sunny is desperate to belong. This is
apparent in the words “Sunny knew one thing: no one had ever seen through all the fog
he put up around himself, no one had ever touched upon the heart of it all – the pain, the
loneliness, the confusion. No one until Oz” (169). That Oz is the only one who makes
Sunny feel as though he belongs is why Oz’s betrayal later hits Sunny so hard. It means
Sunny can no longer find community with him and is left to satisfy his desire for
community and belonging by becoming one with the Ummah Movement and capitulat­
ing to the group’s values entirely.
Additionally, the novel paints Sunny as vulnerable to Oz’s propaganda because of
repressed queer desire. Sunny perceives his reality as someone who experiences attraction
to other men as an aberration that adds to the disconnection and rejection he already
feels. As such, he latches onto the terrorist organization as a force to purify himself.2 This
development reaches a disturbing conclusion when, near the book’s close, Sunny grad­
uates to enjoying the act of killing when he beheads the mayor of Nineveh, Iraq, because
it allows him to possess another man entirely: “I inherited his world when I spilled that
filthy blood [ . . . ]. He’s mine now” (Bhutto 2018c, 495), he gloats. As Monty listens in
startled horror, Sunny announces: “I killed a man, I ate his soul” (495). Sunny’s visceral
glee in murder and his choice to frame it as eating a soul speaks to the horrifying
corruption of his romantic desires. Sunny no longer tries to be with men; instead, he
seems happy to possess them in this cannibalistic way.
Indeed, with both Sunny and Monty, Bhutto connects radicalization to exclusion
coupled with masculinity gone awry. Monty’s unbelonging is rooted in his inability to
reproduce his father’s masculinity even though, as the scion of a rich Karachi family, he
has every reason to belong. The son of a corrupt father and an anxious mother who is
always trying on new identities, Monty is perpetually lost. His family’s moral bankruptcy
defines his life: he feels uncomfortable with his father’s behaviour and his family’s ill-
treatment of their servants. Finally, Monty is disoriented by his mother’s newly acquired
religiosity, which manifests in an almost cartoonish, cult-like devotion to a televangelist
rather than any meaningful behavioural change. Crucially, apart from his mother’s new
practice, which is limited to “pinning and unpinning the cloth [of her hijab] around her
anxious face” (Bhutto 2018c, 120) and mouthing the televangelist’s “mispronounced
prayers” (203), Monty and his cosmopolitan elite family are indifferent to religious
observance, an important detail within the novel’s larger efforts to challenge stereotypes
connecting radicalization to Islam.
Finally, just as Sunny is excluded in England because of his religion and class, Anita is
marginalized in Pakistan because she belongs to a working-class Christian family in
a Muslim-majority country. As a child, she feels some measure of solidarity with the pet
caged birds at her mother’s rich employer’s house since they are also trapped by their
oppressors. Anita spends her childhood “worrying about the hungry birds” (Bhutto
6 S. KAMAL

2018c, 110). The employer’s son, a boy around Anita’s age, does not care about these pets
at all and, indeed, eats “fried bird”, as evidenced by the “crumpled Kentucky Fried
Chicken boxes” Anita spies in his room (110–111). It is apparent that she cannot fit in
with people like this boy, a point further driven home when she enrols at the elite Karachi
American School under the name Layla and, although she is adept at playing the part of
the popular girl, fails to connect with her sheltered classmates in any real way. The only
belonging Anita feels growing up is with her communist neighbour, Osama, who offers
a way for the novel to introduce class commentary and deride the injustices of economic
inequalities. The old book that Osama gifts Anita as “his greatest inheritance” contains
annotations such as “Confiscate the fields from the landowners, take away the mills from
robbers, redeem the country from its dark hours” (Bhutto 2018c, 351, 352). The contrast
of these ideas with the chronicling of Monty’s landowning family’s corruption suggests
where the novel’s politics lie and how it invites readers to empathize with those who
suffer the consequences of inequality. In delineating the circumstances of the three young
characters in the style of the Bildungsroman, The Runaways wants readers to imagine
themselves in place of these characters. However, asking readers who are likely to come
from a place of privilege to empathize with othered characters also underscores the limits
and universalizing tendencies of empathy.

The empathy argument

In recent years, the idea that reading fiction makes people more empathetic has been
disseminated across disciplines from psychology and neuroscience to philosophy and
literary studies (Tamir et al. 2016; Oatley 2016; Zaki 2019; Samur, Tops, and Koole 2018;
Galgut 2010; Nussbaum 1996; Bracher 2013). In many discussions, world literature,
through its ability to showcase othered lives, is framed as the ideal means of encouraging
empathy. What is left out of this framing is who world literature makes more empathetic
and who is positioned as the object of this empathy. The problem with making the case
for cross-cultural empathy through the novel is that it can further centre privileged
readers over others. The world literary marketplace commodifies world literature related
to the Global South for readers largely in the Global North, filtering and packaging
literature according to their perceived preferences (Brouillette 2007, 59–61; Young 2006,
3–4; Ranasinha 2007, 15; Toth 2021, 637–638). Morey warns us in Islamophobia and the
Novel that while the novel remains popular as “a conduit for empathy”, and many writers
see it as their duty to provoke empathy in readers, it is necessary to distinguish “active
transcultural empathy” from universalizing ideas about the shared human experience
(2018, 25). Similarly, Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin (1998) reject “literary universality” as
a mask for Eurocentrism in literary study (92). Furthermore, recent scepticism about
relying on fiction to learn empathy casts doubt on whether cross-cultural empathy can
move beyond universalism (Stonebridge 2020; Landy 2012). The challenge that remains,
therefore, is for the writer (and publishers) to adjust cross-cultural communication so
that it does not flatten the complexity of othered cultures.
Witnessing is a key component of what novelists hope to create when they talk about
inspiring empathy. There is the sense that witnessing is ethical because it involves
“mimetic reflection” or rumination on what it would feel like to suffer if one swapped
places with the other (Ganguly 2016, 36). Mimetic reflection can provoke such strong
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 7

empathy that the viewer is inspired to act (Kaplan 2011, 257). When reflection accom­
panies empathy, it becomes what Debjani Ganguly (2016, 36) has called affective cogni­
tion – “a union of feeling, imagination, and reflection” – which involves an intense sense
of connection identifiable as witnessing. The ethics of witnessing should be scrutinized,
however, when “we” are witnessing another who is othered. In the interest of resisting the
urge to throw the baby (reading) out with the bathwater (the Eurocentric tendencies of
the literary marketplace), I turn to Megan Boler’s (1997) account of the risks of passive
empathy in teaching MAUS (Spiegelman 1997), a graphic novel about survival in Nazi
Germany, in a multicultural undergraduate survey course, and H.G. Toth’s (2021)
attempt to centre reading through reader-response theory in order to read difference
more ethically. Boler argues that “in the absence of more complete historical accounts” of
the Holocaust, the empathy generated from reading a text like MAUS is passive (1997,
255). Passive empathy, generated from reading, can be summed up as the act of “putting
oneself in the other person’s shoes” (257). This kind of empathy is dangerous because it
directs concern to “a fairly distant other, whom we cannot directly help” (257). In the
absence of the possibility of helping, this empathy is easily reducible to a concern not for
the other but for oneself (257). What follows from putting yourself in another person’s
shoes is the thought that the calamity that has befallen the other could just as easily
happen to you. Instead of being forced to identify with the oppressor and interrogate
their own complicity in oppressive power structures, readers can simply identify with the
oppressed and exonerate themselves (258).
As a solution, Boler offers “testimonial reading”, a reading practice that takes witnes­
sing a step further to include personal responsibility on the part of readers who must
rethink their own assumptions and recognize themselves as “implicated in the social
forces that create the climate of obstacles the other must confront” (1997, 261–263).
Similarly, Tim S. Gauthier (2015, 29) suggests that effective empathy is “bi-directional”: it
involves practising vulnerability and interrogating oneself as well as the target of one’s
empathy. Instead of offering an ethical reading strategy, Toth chooses to describe read­
ing, insisting that reading can be ethical because it involves “the reading self and self-in-
the-world interact[ing] and affect[ing] each other, mutually shaping their viewpoints”
(2021, 651). These strategies suggest that the act of reading the novel can be productive in
the empathy it inspires only if the reader is sufficiently immersed in the process through
either additional political and ethical work, or a willingness to alter the self through
engagement with a text.
In order for a postcolonial novel to employ witnessing effectively, it must move its
world-making beyond what Ganguly has called “the postcolonial world’s violent spasms
and the various forms of spectatorship that have been generated in the global West”
(2016, 178). Put simply, the relationship between the Global North reader and the Global
South-based text must go beyond consumption and spectatorship to cause the reader to
reflect on their own positionality and responsibility. For its part, The Runaways does
attempt to implicate its privileged readers and hold them to account. This is apparent in
Bhutto’s call to investigate the elite existences of characters like Monty, who represent the
cosmopolitan global elite. Perhaps, Bhutto’s fiction relies on the possibility that readerly
empathy is a different type of witnessing, as Keen suggests (2007, 4). There are witnesses
who experience events in person, those who hear about another’s experience, and those
who simply witness by reading about the event in question (4). Consider also Caroline
8 S. KAMAL

Wake’s (2013, 113, 116) differentiation of the three levels of witnesses: primary, second­
ary, and tertiary witnesses. Primary witnesses are “spatiotemporally copresent at the
scene of the trauma” and secondary witnesses are “spatiotemporally copresent at the
scene of testimony” (113). Tertiary witnesses – for example, the viewers of video
testimony – lack spatio-temporal presence but have emotional co-presence (113). In
our context, Monty, the primary witness, is a conduit for the reader, the tertiary witness.
As The Runaways closes, Monty finds himself witness to unspeakable horror as Layla
(formerly Anita), the girl he loves, is subjected to torture under a terrorist regime that has
turned against her. In this moment, Monty finds his purpose as “a sentinel”:
He breathes deeply and tries not to listen to Layla, screaming and crying in her chair, her
face wet with tears.
He is a sentinel, a beacon.
This is why he was sent here, why he walked to Nineveh through the desert, why he is
a vanguard of this army. He’s a sentinel, a watchman. (Bhutto 2018c, 542)

His inability to act mirrors the inability of those who feel empathy through reading
fiction to act given what Keen (2007, 17–19) has characterized as the impossibility of
reciprocity, the idea that readers cannot do anything to help the characters simply
because these characters do not exist. Fictionality also makes it easier for readers to feel
empathy because it guarantees that there will be no real-world cost: readers can feel
empathy without even wanting to help. This inability – or even unwillingness – to effect
change can extend beyond the realm of the fictional to what a tertiary witness might feel
watching horror unroll as part of the 24-hour news cycle, as a constant spectator of
atrocities without personal stakes. A generous reading of Monty witnessing Layla’s
torture might cast him as Jacques Derrida’s (2000, 186) superstes: the witness as “survi­
vor”, who exists in the present and the future, recording for posterity the truth of what
has occurred. In the face of his worst nightmare, Monty discovers a tragic purpose as the
survivor-witness who observes everything but is rendered an immobile “sentinel”. There
is a shocking power to this image that captures the horror of events, drawing clear
parallels with our real world in which we have watched news of atrocities in Syria and
Iraq in immobilized shock. Ultimately, the novel’s final moments reveal the inadequacy
of the empathy witnesses feel even as Bhutto tries to make a case for empathy.
Universalizing affect may succeed in challenging stereotypes and provoking empathy,
but this feeling cannot be productive without additional political and ethical work and
a desire to act, even at personal cost, on the part of the privileged reader predominantly
located in the Global North.

The implied reader and the global literary marketplace

Owing to the dynamics of the literary marketplace, empathy is to be felt primarily by
readers in the Global North for characters in the Global South. The Runaways subverts
expectations about Islam and radicalization. However, it still centres the Global North,
complicating the equation, as this final section will detail. Given the global literary market­
place’s tendency to fashion world literature as a commodity (Brouillette 2007; Huggan
2001), there is a thin line between writing that creates productive empathy for the other –
which might promote cross-cultural understanding in the real world – and writing that is
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 9

complicit in an imperialist narrative. Slaughter (2007, 325) is cautious of the latter, terming
it “cosmopolitan solipsism”, and characterizing it as a “literary manipulation” designed to
justify western political intervention. In a review of Malala Yousafzai’s memoir (co-written
with Christina Lamb), Bhutto herself notes that “there is a genuine concern that this
extraordinary girl’s courageous and articulate message will be colonized by one power or
other for its own insidious agendas” (2013, n.p.). This is part of a larger problem with the
idea of writing as testimony. There is a history of literature about oppression in foreign
places justifying imperialist agendas, most recently US intervention in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Contemporary scholarship has focused on this problem.3 Shenila Khoja-
Moolji (2018, 4–6) argues that books such as Malala’s are appropriated to promote neo-
imperialist, capitalist agendas. Meanwhile, Rachel Fox (2018), borrowing Gillian
Whitlock’s (2007) term, observes that such “veiled bestsellers” (Fox 2018, 88) or “pedago­
gies of peril” (174) become subsumed into “a neo-imperial project of cosmopolitan interest,
sympathy, charity, and ‘rescue’ within the context of the War on Terror” (180). These
characteristics are not just limited to the memoir genre. Amal Amireh and Lisa Suhair
Majaj (2000) offer similar critiques of novels. They argue that novels about women in the
Global South are given book covers with images of “veiled, faceless” women, and blurbs
that offer a look into an exotic world, citing Fadia Faqir’s Nisanit (1987), Hanan Al-
Shayth’s Women of Sand and Myrrh (1992), and Alifa Rifaat’s Distant View of a Minaret
(1983) as examples. The logic goes that playing to stereotypes attracts readers and sales
(Amireh and Majaj 2000, 5–6). The narratives in and marketing of Taslima Nasreen’s novel
Lajja (Ghosh 2000, 39–84) and Bharati Mukherjee’s Jasmine (Grewal 1994, 45–74),
respectively, have been accused of framing the Global North as the saviour. Finally, Fox
(2022, 16–19) extends the term “veiled bestseller” to fictional contexts in her study of
novels from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Contemporary world literature must there­
fore toe a difficult line, resisting the neo-imperial project without becoming unmarketable.
The Runaways creates an interesting tension in registering a protest against exactly the
kind of global capitalism within which the literary marketplace sits. In the novel, Monty’s
family represent the corrupt global elite. They have made their money through a series of
nefarious business moves starting with his grandfather’s profiteering during Partition in
1947. That they continue to make money by slicing up Karachi into luxury real-estate
developments and driving up gentrification, while maintaining significant assets over­
seas, paints them as the postcolonial inheritors of extractive colonialism. Their lives of
luxury, cosmopolitan mobility, and shopping trips to the luxury store Harrods in London
all come at the expense of Karachi’s suffering locals. Bhutto insists on writing against the
moneyed cosmopolitanism of Monty’s world to indict the global elite. The language of
her novel is most precise and insightful when it is taking an objective, bird’s-eye view of
its characters’ lives that satirizes their modern, globalized world. This is evident when
Karachi is described as an oppressive space replete with “towering billboards advertising
Gulf Airlines and skin-lightening creams”, hinting at the complicity between such things
as colourism and consumerism (Bhutto 2018c, 13). Bhutto’s anti-capitalist critique also
resurfaces later when the BBC and Davos become points of contention between Sunny
and Oz. Symbols of success are revealed to be devoid of meaning throughout the text,
from Layla’s disdain for the private school in Karachi to Oz’s leveraging of liberal media
and Davos for his own publicity. Bhutto’s critique is most clearly expressed in her
portrayal of how Dubai, “a fantasy of metal and glass, skyscrapers and highways,
10 S. KAMAL

glittering against the ochre sand” (378), becomes the site of Layla’s brother prostituting
her to his wealthy clients. However, despite these powerful critiques, the novel is
embedded in this cosmopolitan capitalist world. It is because of this, perhaps, that it
stumbles in terms of detail and cannot help but reveal the kind of cosmopolitan elite
world it emerges from and addresses.
I offer a reading of culturally specific details from the novel to demonstrate the ways in
which the novel stumbles here. Consider the word “naath” (Bhutto 2018c, 201, 207) that
is substituted for “naat” (‫ نعت‬in Urdu, meaning a poem recited in honour of the Prophet
Muhammad). The introduction of the “h” Bhutto affixes at the end of “naath” renders the
word meaningless as it interferes with its phonetic pronunciation. Additionally, at one
point, Nayar, the religious guide of Monty’s mother, advises her to remove her nail
polish, “for it contained alcohol” (190). In actuality, some Muslims avoid nail polish not
because it contains alcohol (it does not) but because the varnish does not permit water to
pass over the nails during wudu (ritual ablution before prayer) (Wright 2015, 159). These
instances reinforce the sense that the anticipated reader is one who is not familiar with
the intricacies of Islamic religious practice and, perhaps, one who leans towards secular­
ism. Similarly, certain other moments betray a lack of on-the-ground knowledge on the
part of The Runaways. For instance, there is a memorable scene when Anita’s mother
Zenobia tastes Cadbury’s chocolate for the first time after her son brings it from Dubai.
Here, it is emphatically stated that “Zenobia had never had Cadbury’s before and she
relished the milky chocolate, rationing her limited supply” (Bhutto 2018c, 471). This is an
unbelievable moment given that Cadbury’s has, for decades, manufactured chocolate in
Pakistan under Cadbury Dairy Milk Pakistan Ltd and sold it at affordable prices in the
local market (“Cadbury Dairy Milk – Pakistan – PakBiz” n.d.). While minor, these errors
point to a larger problem of intent. The modern publishing apparatus involves multiple
steps and scrutiny, even – since 2014 (Zelevansky 2019, n.p.) – sensitivity reading, “the
practice of reviewing advance manuscripts for inaccuracies in their portrayal of margin­
alized persons” (Lawrence 2020, 30). That these errors should crop up suggests that their
consideration was not prioritized, perhaps because the implied readership for this novel
is not one likely to be familiar with the contexts it discusses. Given the lack of diversity
within the publishing industry (So 2020), which continues to centre a “core (white)
audience” (Saha and van Lente 2020, 14), this is not surprising.
In light of these observations, it is imperative to look at the question of audience: who
does The Runaways address and what are the implications of publishers assuming it will
be read by such an audience? Kwame Anthony Appiah (1991, 348) has pointed out, albeit
in the African context, that postcolonial intellectuals depend almost entirely on two
institutions: “the African university, an institution whose intellectual life is overwhel­
mingly constituted as western, and the Euro-American publisher and reader”. Appiah
speculates that postcolonial intellectuals are “always at risk of becoming otherness
machines, with the manufacture of alterity as our principal role” (356).4 This dilemma
remains true for the industry of postcoloniality today. For instance, the role of the
character of Monty as a witness suggests that The Runaways speaks to other “Montys”,
or to a community of privileged readers. Furthermore, the overlooked errors referenced
above demonstrate that the novel does not anticipate readers with significant Pakistani
lived experience. Of course, because of the market forces at play, representation within
anglophone Pakistani literature remains limited and it is more likely to remain interested
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 11

in speaking to privileged readers. This is not because of nefarious design on the part of
the author but rather because writers who are able to publish with prestigious publishing
houses come from some level of privilege.
Given the dynamics of the literary marketplace, can this novel, and the novel in
general, succeed in encouraging empathy through reading? The novel, as a form, pro­
vides a safe space for an encounter with the other which allows readers to recognize
sameness within the other and thus to be able to feel empathy in this recognition
(Gauthier 2015, 36). As sameness is the key to empathy, Bhutto’s gesture towards
universality aligns with her purported aim. With The Runaways, she succeeds in creating
the conditions for an empathetic encounter. In unpacking the sociopolitical factors that
contribute to radicalization in this postcolonial Bildungsroman, Bhutto challenges the
assumption that religion – specifically, Islam – is the driver of radicalization. As I have
shown, she instead attributes radicalization to exclusion based on religion, class, mascu­
linity, and sexuality. However, the problems with empathy and the power imbalance in
the global literary industry remain. That The Runaways asks its relatively privileged
readers to empathize with its othered characters underscores the limits of empathy and
its universalizing tendencies. While the turns to witnessing and testimonial reading offer
ways to recoup productive empathy, the postcolonial novel and its empathy project
nevertheless centres a certain type of secular cosmopolitan reader, who, as a spectator,
can remain at a safe distance from the traumatic experiences of the central protagonists.
This is apparent in what the text prioritizes (manufacturing empathy for the minor­
itized other) and what it overlooks (specific details of the Pakistani and Muslim experi­
ence). This issue does not concern just this text but also encompasses the larger industry
and the material conditions of the production of world literature. Ultimately, even when
a novel intends to complicate the equation, it cannot fully succeed given the larger
apparatus of literary production. Brouillette has recently suggested that we interrogate
the political economy of literary production to look not only at the circulation of texts,
literary prizes and reviews, but also at the kind of people who are able to “make a living
working within the literary book industries” (2017, n.p.). Given that it is primarily people
with a certain degree of financial privilege who can devote themselves to the literary
industry as readers and writers, and that the industry itself is centred in the Global North,
it is not surprising that the postcolonial novel addresses itself to the Global North. Until
the material conditions of the industry undergo a transformation, the postcolonial writer
will continue to be positioned as a cultural spokesperson, and the postcolonial novel will
engage in production for western consumption. That said, the careful work this novel
does in teasing out the root causes of radicalization and uncovering the insidious impact
of exclusion is valuable even if its empathy project ultimately remains plagued by larger
problems within the global literary marketplace. In the end, the reader is responsible for
engaging in self-reflective reading practices which can allow for productive empathy.

Notes
1. Examples include Marin Amis (2006), John Updike (2006), Don DeLillo (2007), and Frank
Miller (2011).
2. The word “pure” appears throughout the text in this context (Bhutto 2018c, 171, 252, 530, 641).
12 S. KAMAL

3. This genre spans everything from Azar Nafisi (2003) to Khalid Hosseini (2003) and Malala
Yousafzai and Christina Lamb (2013). While these stories hold their own merits, they become
bestsellers for reasons associated with an Orientalist imagining of Islamicate cultures (Kamal
2018, 1–19) and as modern iterations of Harem literatures (Whitlock 2007, 88).
4. Appiah borrows the term “otherness machines” from Pakistani writer and critic Sara Suleri
(1989, 105).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by the University of York (Overseas Research Scholarship).

Notes on contributor
Sauleha Kamal PhD investigates connections between the novel, empathy, and human rights, and
problematizes them in terms of the economic aims of the literary marketplace. She has published
articles in Postcolonial Text and The Routledge Companion to Humanism and Literature (2021),
and essays in Desi Delicacies (2021), The Atlantic, and DAWN. She was a resident fellow in writing
at Yaddo in New York (2019).

ORCID
Sauleha Kamal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7850-9307

References
Amireh, Amal, and Lisa Suhair Majaj, eds. 2000. Going Global: The Transnational Reception of
Third World Women Writers. New York: Garland.
Amis, Martin. 2006. “The Last Days of Muhammad Atta.” The New Yorker, April 24. https://www.
newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/24/the-last-days-of-muhammad-atta
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 1991. “Is the Post- in Postmodernism the Post- in Postcolonial?”
Critical Inquiry 17 (2): 336–357.
Apter, Emily. 2009. “Untranslatables: A World System.” New Literary History 39 (3–4): 581–598.
doi:10.1353/nlh.0.0055.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. 1998. Postcolonial Studies: The Key Concepts.
London and New York: Routledge.
Bhutto, Fatima. 2008. “Moonlight’s Children.” [Interview with William Dalrymple] Financial
Times, October 10. https://www.ft.com/content/76a9c204-9662-11dd-9dce-000077b07658
Bhutto, Fatima. 2010. Songs of Blood and Sword: A Daughter’s Memoir. New York: Nation Books.
Bhutto, Fatima. 2013. “I Am Malala by Malala Yousafzai – Review.” The Guardian, October 30.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/30/malala-yousafzai-fatima-bhutto-review
Bhutto, Fatima (@fbhutto). 2018a. “I Thought a Lot about Empathy while Writing the Runaways.”
Twitter, December 17. 10:43a.m. https://twitter.com/fbhutto/status/1074616059406229504
Bhutto, Fatima. 2018b. “‘Radicalism Isn’t a Fever or a Rash. You Don’t Wake up with It One
Morning’: Novelist Fatima Bhutto.” [Interview with Urvashi Bahuguna]. Scroll.in, November 3.
https://scroll.in/article/899953/radicalism-isnt-a-fever-or-a-rash-you-dont-wake-up-with-it-
one-morning-novelist-fatima-bhutto
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 13

Bhutto, Fatima. 2018c. The Runaways. London: Penguin.

Bhutto, Fatima. 2019. “Everything Is Political, Says Fatima Bhutto.” [Interview with Xari Jalil].
Dawn, February 25. https://www.dawn.com/news/1465923
Boler, Megan. 1997. “The Risks of Empathy: Interrogating Multiculturalism’s Gaze.” Cultural
Studies 11 (2): 253–273. doi:10.1080/09502389700490141.
Bracher, Mark. 2013. Educating for Cosmopolitanism: Lessons from Cognitive Science and
Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brennan, Timothy. 1989. “Cosmopolitans and Celebrities.” Race & Class 31 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1177/
030639688903100102.
Brouillette, Sarah. 2007. Postcolonial Writers in the Global Literary Marketplace. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Brouillette, Sarah. 2017. “On Some Recent Worrying over World Literature’s Commodity Status.”
Multilingual Locals and Significant Geographies. http://mulosige.soas.ac.uk/world-literature-
recent-worrying
Brouillette, Sarah. 2015. “World Literature and Market Dynamics.” In Institutions of World
Literature: Writing, Translation, Markets, edited by Stefan Helgesson and Pieter Vermeulen,
93–106. New York: Routledge.
“Cadbury Dairy Milk – Pakistan – PakBiz”. n.d. Accessed 17 July 2020. https://pakbiz.com/profile/
Cadbury-Pakistan-Ltd
DeLillo, Don. 2007. Falling Man. London: Picador.
Derrida, Jacques. 2000. “‘A Self-Unsealing Poetic Text’: Poetics and Politics of Witnessing Jacques
Derrida.” In Revenge of the Aesthetic: The Place of Literature in Theory Today, edited by Michael
Clark and translated by Rachel Bowlby, 180–207. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fox, Rachel. 2018. “Frames and Cuts: Post-Millennial Representations of West Asian Female
Identities.” PhD diss., Lancaster University. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/126473/1/
2018.RachelFox.PhD.pdf
Fox, Rachel. 2022. (Re)framing Women in Post-Millennial Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran:
Remediated Witnessing in Literary, Visual, and Digital Media. New York: Routledge.
Galgut, Elisa. 2010. “Reading Minds: Mentalization, Irony and Literary Engagement.” The
International Journal of Psychoanalysis 91 (4): 915–935. doi:10.1111/j.1745-8315.2010.00279.x.
Ganguly, Debjani. 2016. This Thing Called the World: The Contemporary Novel as Global Form.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gauthier, Tim S. 2015. 9/11 Fiction, Empathy, and Otherness. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Ghosh, Bishnupriya. 2000. “An Affair to Remember: Scripted Performances in the ‘Nasreen
Affair’.” In Going Global: The Transnational Reception of Third World Women Writers, edited
by Amal Amireh and Lisa Suhair Majaj, 39–83. New York: Garland.
Grewal, Inderpal. 1994. “The Postcolonial, Ethnic Studies, and the Diaspora.” Socialist Review 4:
45–74.
Hoagland, Ericka A. 2019. “The Postcolonial Bildungsroman.” In A History of the Bildungsroman,
edited by Sarah Graham, 217–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hosseini, Khalid. 2003. The Kite Runner. London: Bloomsbury.
Huggan, G. 2001. The Postcolonial Exotic: Marketing the Margins. London, NY: Routledge.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kahf, Mohja. 1999. Western Representations of the Muslim Woman: From Termagant to Odalisque.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Kamal, Sauleha. 2018. “Picturing ‘Female Followers of Mahomet’ as ‘Veiled Maids’: Muslim
Women and the Victim/Seductress Binary in Frankenstein and ‘Alastor’.” Postcolonial Text
13 (1): 1–19.
Kaplan, E. Ann. 2011. “Empathy and Trauma Culture: Imaging Catastrophe.” In Empathy:
Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives, edited by Amy Coplan and Peter Goldie,
255–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keen, Suzanne. 2007. Empathy and the Novel. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
14 S. KAMAL

Khoja-Moolji, Shenila. 2018. Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects
in Muslim South Asia. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
King, Bruce. 2007. “The Image of the United States in Three Pakistani Novels.” Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions 8 (3–4): 683–688. doi:10.1080/14690760701571338.
Landy, Joshua. 2012. How to Do Things with Fictions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lawrence, E. E. 2020. “Is Sensitivity Reading a Form of Censorship?” Journal of Informational
Ethics 29 (1): 30–44.
Marlowe, Anne. 2007. “Buying Anti-American.” National Review, May 14. https://www.nationalre
view.com/2007/05/buying-anti-american-ann-marlowe
Miller, Frank. 2011. Holy Terror. Burbank, CA: Legendary Comics.
Mohanty, Chandra. 1988. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.”
Feminist Review 30 (1): 61–88. doi:10.1057/fr.1988.42.
Moretti, Franco. 1985. “The Comfort of Civilization.” Representations 12: 115–139. doi:10.2307/
3043781.
Morey, Peter. 2018. Islamophobia and the Novel. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mufti, Aamir. 2016. Forget English!: Orientalisms and World Literatures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Nafisi, Azar. 2003. Reading Lolita in Tehran. London: I B Tauris.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1996. “Compassion: The Basic Social Emotion.” Social Philosophy and Policy
13 (1): 27–58. doi:10.1017/S0265052500001515.
Oatley, K. 2016. “Fiction: Simulation of Social Worlds.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20 (8): m618–
628. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.002.
Ranasinha, Ruvani. 2007. South Asian Writers in 20th-Century Britain: Culture in Translation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saha, Anamik, and Sandra van Lente. 2020. Rethinking “Diversity” in Publishing. London:
Goldsmiths Press. https://www.spreadtheword.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
Rethinking_diversity_in-publishing_WEB.pdf
Samur, D., M. Tops, and S. L. Koole. 2018. “Does a Single Session of Reading Literary Fiction
Prime Enhanced Mentalising Performance? Four Replication Experiments of Kidd and Castano
(2013).” Cognition and Emotion 32 (1): 130–144. doi:10.1080/02699931.2017.1279591.
Slaughter, Joseph R. 2007. Human Rights, Inc: The World Novel, Narrative Form, and International
Law. New York: Fordham University Press.
So, Richard Jean. 2020. Redlining Culture: A Data History of Racial Inequality and Postwar Fiction.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Spiegelman, Art. 1997. Maus: A Survivor's Tale. New York: Pantheon Books.
Spivak, Gayatri C. 1985. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry
12 (1): 243–261. doi:10.1086/448328.
Stonebridge, Lyndsey. 2020. Writing and Righting: Literature in the Age of Human Rights.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Suleri, Sara. 1989. Meatless Days. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tamir, M., S. H. Schwartz, J. Cieciuch, M. Riediger, C. Torres, C. Scollon, V. Dzokoto, X. Zhou,
and Vishkin A. 2016. “Desired Emotions Across Cultures: A Value-Based Account.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 111 (1): 67–82. doiI:10.1037/pspp0000072.
Toth, H. G. 2021. “Reading in the Global Literary Marketplace: Material and Textual Affects.”
Interventions 23 (4): 636–654. doi:10.1080/1369801X.2020.1784022.
Updike, John. 2006. Terrorist. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Wake, Caroline. 2013. “Regarding the Recording: The Viewer of Video Testimony, the Complexity
of Copresence and the Possibility of Tertiary Witnessing.” History & Memory 25 (1): 111–144.
doi:10.2979/histmemo.25.1.111.
Whitlock, Gillian. 2007. Soft Weapons Autobiography in Transit. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wright, Hannah. 2015. “YBMs: Religious Identity and Consumption among Young British
Muslims.” International Journal of Market Research 57 (1): 151–164. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2015-
009.
 JOURNAL OF POSTCOLONIAL WRITING 15

Young, John K. 2006. Black Writers, White Publishers: Marketplace Politics in 20th-Century African
American Literature. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press.
Yousafzai, Malala, and Christina Lamb. 2013. I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood up for
Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Zaki, J. 2019. The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World. New York: Crown.
Zelevansky, Nora. 2019. “The Big Business of Unconscious Bias.” The New York Times, November
20. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/style/diversity-consultants.html